PRINCETON,     N.     J. 


BX    8069    .K72    1878 


THE  FREE  LUTHERAN  DIET. 


An    Epoch    in    the    Hi&tcry    of   the    Lutheran    Church    in    Americ; 


The  Essays  and  Discussions,  read  and  delivered  at  the  Free  Lu- 
theran Diet,  held  in  Philadelphia,  December  27-28,  1877,  in  one 
octavo  volume,  stiff  paper  cover,  postage  paid,  price  $r.oo,  or  in 
cloth  binding,  $1.50. 

The  volume  is  edited  by  Rev.  Prof.  H.  E.  Jacobs,  1).  1). 

The  Diet  was  an  acknowledged  success,  one  hundred  Lutheran 
ministers  having  been  in  attendance,  and  has  created  so  marked  and 
favorable  an  impression  as  to  warrant  the  belief  that  a  very  large 
edition  of  The  Proceedings  will  be  called  for.  Ten  thousand  copies 
should  be  sold.  The  volume  should  be  in  the  library  of  every  Lu- 
theran. It  is  one  of  the  most  important  Lutheran  books  that  have 
ever  been  published  in  America. 


t^^^^<SK>  -—J^^^ 


"WHAT  THSY  SAY  ABOUT  IT, 


"It  is  a  very  great  credit  to  your  taste  and  enterprise  as  a  pub- 
lisher. Its  clear  type,  fine  paper  and  general  finish  combine  to 
make  it  one  of  the  most  handsome  books  that  have  appeared  in  our 
Church  in  this  coimtry." 

^        .    .       ,,..      (Prof.  H.  E.  JACOBS,  D.  D. 
Secretaries  ol  Diet  -^  ^^^,   ^y   ^   ^^^^^^  ^^  j^ 


•■  This  book  meets  a  long  felt  want  where  our  Church  is  little  or 
wholly  unknown."  Rev.  L.  C.  GROSECLOSE. 


"I  would  not  be  without  it  under  any  consitlerations.  All  our 
clergy  should  have  it,  as  well  as  the  laity.  It  should  be  in  every 
Lutheran  family."  Rkv.  H.  C.  HOLLOWAY. 


"  I  am  much  pleased  with  the  fine  papsr  and  type  of  your  book. 
I  had  the  pleasure  to  be  present  at  the  Diet,  but  the  book  is  the 
more  interesting.  Indeed,  it  is  a  favor  to  have  the  book  at  even  a 
greater  price."  Rev.  L.  M  HEILMAN. 


"  Am  much  pleased  with  your  get  up  of  the  Diet   report,  for  ex 
cellence  of  paper,  clearness  of  press  work — in  short,  the  whole  of 
the  puljlisher's  work,  a  fit  dress  for  the   very  valuable  papers  con- 
tained in  the  volume.     Concerning  the  price — well,  it  is  decidedly 
much  for  a  little."  Prof.  E.  S.  BREIDENBAUGH. 


"  I  like  the  appearance  of  the  book   very  much,      i  hope  it  will 
have  a  large  sale."  Rev.  E.  GREENWALD,  D.  D 


"  I  was  surprised  to  see  such  a  large  and  beautiful  volume,  and  am 
fully  prepared  to  hear  that  this  attractive  form,  together  with  the 
smail  cost,  will  induce  many  of  our  people,  all  over  the  land,  to 
purchase  it  and  thereby  to  make  themselves  better  acquainted  with 
its  valuable  and  instructive  contents.  I  am  sure  that  you  deserve, 
and  will  receive,  the  thanks  of  the  Church,  for  putting  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Diet  in  the  hands  of  the  people  in  such  an  attractive 
form,  and  at  so  small  a  price."         Rev.  G.  F.  KROTEL,  D.  D. 


"  You  have  gotten  it  out  very  handsomely,  and  the  many  attrac- 
tions of  its  appearance,  as  a  mere  specimen  of  fine  book-making, 
regardless  of  its  valuable  contents,  moves  me  to  read  it  just  as  soon 
as  possible."  Rl:v.  L.  A.  GO  TWALD,  D.  D. 


"  Will  try  and  secure  some  orders  for  copies  " 

Rkv.  M.  L.  SHINDEL. 


"Am  pleased  with  it."  Rev.  D.  KUNTZ. 


"Besides  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  papers  read  before  the  Diet, 
and  the  discussions  on  them  given  here  in  such  life-like  fiillness,  the 
unique  character  of  the  Convention,  the  first  of  the   kind  ever  held 

(ii) 


in  the  Lutheran  Church  of  this  country,  discussing  matters  that 
deeply  concern  her  welfare,  must  of  course  secure  for  it  a  great  deal 
of  interest.  It  will  be  of  permanent  value.  The  volume  is  so 
neatly,  tastefully,  and  substantially  gotten  out  as  to  commend  it 
wherever  it  is  seen.  I  hope  your  enterprise  in  the  matter  may  be 
suitably  rewarded  through  a  large  sale  of  the  book." 

Rev.  M.  valentine,  1).  1). 


"  I  am  much,  very  much,  pleased  with  it.  I  like  the  manner  of 
its  getting  up,  and  as  for  its  contents,  it  is  certainly  one  of  the  very 
best  theological  documents  our  Church  in  this  country  has  yet  pro- 
duced. From  the  reading  of  these  admirable  essays  and  the  discus- 
sions upon  them,  I  have  concluded  that  we  are  not  so  far  apart  in 
our  views  as  some  suppose."  Rev.  R.  WEISER,  D.  D. 


"Success  to  Diet  No.  2."  Rev.  G.  \V.  ENU1:RS. 


"So  far  as  I  have  had  time  to  examine  it  I  think  it  first-class  Lu- 
theran literature."  Rev.  T-  M.  DUSTMAN. 


'•  I  am  much  pleased  with  it,  and  iind  that  it  contains  an  amount 
of  information  that  only  could  be  obtained  after  much  research  else- 
where.    I  think  I  can  secure  some  subscribers  for  it." 

Rkv.  ENOCH  SMITH. 


"  It's  a  great  book — worth  its  weight  in  gold  to  any  one  pretend- 
ing to  be  a  Lutheran.  You  deserve  great  credit,  and  have  my 
thanks."  Rev.  R.  A.  FLNK,  D.  1). 


•'  I  am  very  much  pleased  with  the  book.     It  more  than  realizes 
my  expectations.     Hope  it  will  have  a  large  sale." 

riv.  \vm.  K^:LL^■. 


"The  subjects  discussed  are  very  important,  and  a  wide  circula- 
tion should  be  secured  for  the  book."  Rev.  H    RJ'X'K. 


"Am  much  pleased  with  it.  Only  sorry  I  did  not  take  the 
cloth  binding.  Did  not  think  it  would  be  so  useful  a  book  for 
reference."  Rev.  J.  H.  WALTERICK. 

(iii) 


"  I  unhesitatingly  pronounce  it  one  of  the  most  satisfactory  books 
in  setting  before  the  reader  the  views  held  in  their  different  aspects 
by  the  Lutheran  Church  on  those  subjects  that  were  there  discussed. 
It  is  Hterature  of  which  the  Church  may  justly  be  proud." 

Rev.  J.  F.  SHAFFER. 


"  The  book  gives  satisfaction  as  far  as  heard  from." 

Rev.  H.  W.  KUHNS. 


"Am  well  pleased  with  it."  Rev.  R,  ANDERSON. 


"  I  am  much  pleased  with  them  (the  essays)  as  well  as  the  man- 
ner in  which  you  got  up  the  volume.  If  every  Lutheran  Diet  were 
to  furnish  us  the  same  kind  of  spiritual  treat,  I  think  we  could  not 
have  too  many  of  them."  Rev.  C.  ALBRECHT. 


"  I  am  much  pleased   with  it.     The  matter   it  contains  is  very 
valuable."  Rev.  W.  C.  WIRE. 


"  I  am  much  pleased  with  it."         Rev.  G.  F.  BEH RINGER. 


"  I  am  well  pleased  with  it."  Rev.  S.  B.  HYMAN. 


"  Would  not  be  without  it  for  twice  its  price." 

Rev.  H.  C.  HAITHCOX. 


"  Am  pleased  with  it."  Rev.  J.  H.  TURNER. 


"  Am  much  pleased  with  it,  and  will  try  to  get  more  subscribers 
for  it.  It  is  just  what  our  members  need  to  post  themselves  in  the 
history  and  doctrines  of  the  Lutheran  Church." 

Rev.  G.  HURSH. 


"  Am  well  pleased  with  it."  Rev.  S.  A.  DIEHL. 


The  sale  of  this  book  has  been  quite   encouraging.     The  edition 
is  limited,  and  those  wishing  copies  ivill  do  well  to  order  at  once. 
It  ought  to  be  in  every  Lutheran  library. 
Address 

J.  FRED'K   SMITH,  Pnblislier, 

914  Filbert  St.,  Philadelphia. 

(iv) 


LUTHERAN    MONOGRAPHS. 


A  CHRONICLE 


AUGSBURG  CONFESSION 


Charles  P.  Krauth,  D.  D.,  L.L.D, 


A  QUESTION  OF  LATIN ITY, 


HENRY    E.    JACOBS,  D.  D, 


rilll.ADKLrillA  : 
J.  FRED'K  SMITH,  Publisher, 
914  FILUKRT  ST., 
187S. 


COPYRIGHT 

BY  J.  FRED'K  SMITH, 
1878. 


I'RESS  OF 

INQIIIKER  P.  «  P.  CO 

LANCASTER,  PA. 


PUBLISHER'S    NOTICE. 

Under  the  general  title  of  Lutheran  Monographs,  the  publisher 
proposes  to  issue  a  series  of  essays  on  subjects  of  special  interest  to 
Lutherans.  The  numbers  will  appear  as  near  as  may  be  at  intervals 
of  two  or  three  months;  each  number  to  be  devoted,  as  the  title 
implies,  to  a  single  subject,  but  where  there  may  be  a  connection 
between  two  or  more  articles  they  will  be  issued  together,  as  is  the 
case  with  the  introductory  number. 

He  is  persuaded  that  a  publication  of  this  character  will  be 
acceptable  to  the  l-utheran  Church  in  America.  Every  branch  of 
the  Church  will  be  represented  among  the  contributors  to  the 
Monographs ,  and  no  pains  will  be  spared  to  furnish  exhaustive  and 
scholarly  contributions  by  representative  men  on  subjects  to  which 
they  have  devoted  special  study. 

The  initial  number  of  the  Lutheran  Monographs,  containing 
two  such  important  documents  as  "The  Chronology  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,"  by  Rev.  C.  P.  Krau  h,  D.  D.  LL.  D. ,  and 
"A  Question  of  Latinity,"  by  Rev.  H.  R.  Jacobs,  I).  I).,  cannot 
fail  to  attract  general  attention  ;  and  the  publisher  hopes  that  he 
may  be  able  to  gratify  the  expectations  that  such  articles  will 
awaken  for  the  series.  The  Chronology  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
KE.SSION  must  become  a  necessity  to  all  who  would  be  informed  as 
to  Reformation  history,  and  "  A  Quistion  of  I>atinitv"  must 
conuiiand  the  admiration  of  all  scholarly  readers. 

J.  Frederick.  Smith,  Publisher. 

August,  r8j8. 


A  CHRONICLl^.  OF  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION. 

I.  INTRODUCTORY. 

'^T^HIS  Chronicle  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  its  rise,  progress 
1  and  completion,  is  designed  to  be  supplementary,  in  some  sense, 
to  the  "  Conservative  Reformation,"  and  to  the  Essays  and  Debates 
of  the  "First  Free  Lutheran  Diet  in  America,  Philadelphia,  Decem- 
ber 27,  28,  1877."  It  proposes  to  bring  together  more  completely 
than  has  hitherto  been  attempted,  in  English  at  least,  those  docu- 
mentary annals,  which  shed  light  upon  some  of  the  unsettled  ques- 
tions in  regard  to  our  great  Confession — the  "  apple  of  our  Church's 
eye."  This  monograph  is  a  vindication  in  the  form  of  a  Chronicle  : 
and  as  the  greatest  confusion  has  arisen,  and  has  been  perpetuated, 
in  some  cases  even  for  ages,  by  lack  of  observance  of  the  chronology 
of  the  events  involved,  this  Chronicle  is  made  rigidly  chronological. 
Chronology  and  geography  have  been  called  the  eyes  of  history, 
yet  the  handling  of  history  seems  often  to  begin  with  putting  out 
her  eyes.  But  history  without  her  eyes,  is  mere  romance,  at  best, 
and  at  the  worst,  is  misleading  falsehood. 

Fidelity  in  seemingly  little  things  is  important.  This  is  especially 
true  in  history,  and  most  of  all  in  the  history  of  the  Church.  God 
is  in  history.  It  forms,  with  Nature  and  the  Word,  the  great 
Trilogy  of  His  Revelation.  The  three  are  to  be  interpreted  in  the 
same  general  spirit.  We  are  to  bring  to  them  a  close  and  reverent 
observation  of  God's  teaching,  even  to  its  minutest  parts  ;  a  sancti- 
fied and  cautious  use  of  reason.  We  are  to  avoid  credulity,  but 
no  less  rationalism,  in  construing  evidence.  Credulity  dispenses 
with  reason  ;  rationalism  abuses  it.  The  wideness  of  history  tempts 
error  to  put  forth  strong  efforts  to  corrupt  it.  If  history  be  aban- 
doned to  Rationalism,  the  Word  itself  will  be  in  serious  danger. 
The  defence  of  the  citadel  begins  at  the  outposts. 

11.     TIIK  (jUESriON:     ITS  SM.M.LNESS  AND  CIREATNESS.' 

If  the  (jucstions  to  which  we  devote  this  discussion  were  simply 
and  solely  (juestions  of  chronology,   involving  minute  points  of  his- 

(9) 


lO  •  CHRONOLOGY. 

tory,  only  as  they  interest  tlie  exact  scholar,  they  would  be,  indeed, 
relatively  small.  Yet  even  in  that  case  they  would  not  be  unimport- 
ant, for  whatever  is  associated  with  love  of  truth  for  truth's  own  sake. 
and  with  accuracy  in  little  matters,  as  tributary  to  truth,  is  great  in 
principle,  though  the  instance  may  seem  trivial.  But  the  Confes- 
sion of  a  great  Church,  such  a  confession  as  is  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, of  such  a  Church  as  is  the  Lutheran,  gives  importance  to 
any  question  in  which  it  is  involved.  Not,  however,  merely  for  the 
historic  importance  of  their  association,  but  because  of  their  doc- 
trinal and  practical  bearings,  should  the  questions  be  thoroughly  dis- 
cussed and  determined  which  the  enemies  of  our  Church  have  raised 
in  their  assaults  on  our  palladium. 

in.  ASSAULTS  ON  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFKSSIGN  AND  PERVER 
SIGNS  OF  IT. 

These  assaults  have  come  from  eight  sources  :  Romanism,  the 
Calvinistic-Reformed  Church,  Fanaticism,  Separatism,  Sectarian- 
ism, Rationalism,  Unionism,  and  aimless  ignorant  vanity.  These 
assaults,  though  seemingly  in  various  and  conflicting  interests,  have 
been  very  much  alike.  They  have  been  brought  into  unity  by  the 
common  desire  of  the  parties  to  weaken  the  Confession  so  as  to  fit 
it  to  their  ends,  or  failing  in  this  to  put  it  out  of  tlie  way.  In  1579 
appeared  the  letter  of  the  Belgian  ministers,  the  assault  of  Herdesian 
[under  the  jiseudonym  of  Ambrose  Wolf],  and  of  Sturm;  in  1581, 
and  later,  of  Danaeusand  Ursinus  (the  Neustadt  Admonition,  1581  ; 
the  defence  of  it,  1586);  in  1599  the  Stafford  Rook  ;  in  1607  Hos- 
pinian's  Concordia  Discors,  and  a  host  of  similar  works. 

Zacharias  Ursinus  in  the  Neustadt  Admonition,  of  the  Book 
of  Concord,'  puts  in  shape  all  the  objections  of  the  Reformed  to 
the  Augsburg  Confession  :  "No  particular  Churdi  has  the  right  to 
impose  a  formula  on  other  particular  Churches  ;  it  was  written  too 
soon  after  the  break  with  Rome  ;  but  a  few  theologians  were  con- 
cerned in  it  ;  it  was  made  in  haste  and  great  agitation  ;  it  was  pre- 
sented in  trembling,  and  after  being  shaped  with  all  timidity  by  men 
who  felt  that  their  heads  were  not  safe  on  their  shoulders  ;  the  edi- 
tions differ  ;  there  are  things  in  the  Confession  which  even  its  friends 
cannot  defend ;  Transubstantiation  for  example,  the  Mass,  Absolu- 


'  De  Libm  Concordise.      Admonitio.      Neustadt,  410.  1581.410   143.     Also 
in   Ursini  Opera,  n.,  486-694. 


ASSAULTS    ON    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  1  1 

lion  as  a  Sacrament,  and  prayers  for  the  <lead."  In  a  word,  in  reading 
Ursinus's  attacks  on  the  Confession,  we  might  imagine  we  were  read- 
ing a  defence  of  it  by  a  certain  class  of  nominal  Lutherans.  Ursinus 
quotes  from  Melanchthon's  words  of  1560-  omitting  what  does  not 
suit  him. 

The  effort  has  been  made  to  prove  that  Melanchthon  was  the  sole 
author  of  the  Confession,  to  the  exclusion  of  Luther  and  others,  as 
by  Chaniier,  Pareus,  Riickert,  Heppe  : 

That  Luther  was  purposely  kept,  by  some  of  the  princes,  nomi- 
nally Evangelical,  from  participating  in  it.  This  theory  was  put 
forth  by  Sturm  (1579),  repeated  by  Raemund,  (1605) and  has  been 
brought  into  recent  notice  by  Riickert  and  Heppe,  and  eagerly 
caught  at  by  Rationalists  and  Unionists  : 

That  Melanchthon  had  the  right  to  alter  the  Confession  at  his 
pleasure  : 

That  Melanchthon's  writings  are  beyond  Luther's,  the  best  source 
of  interpretation  for  the  Confession  : 

That  a  sense  derived  from  Melanchthon's  latest  writings  or  put 
upon  them  is  the  real  sense  of  the  Confession,  and  that  the  Re- 
formed are  truly  in  its  fellowship,  and  Heppe  goes  so  far  as  to  main- 
tain that  thorough  Lutherans  are  not  in  its  fellowship — that  the 
Augsburg  Confession  does  not  set  forth  Lutheranism  but  Melanch- 
thonianism. 

These  positions,  extravagant  as  they  are,  have  nevertheless  a 
power  for  mischief.  Unscrupulous  ingenuity  can  bewilder  the  un- 
suspecting and  embarrass  even  the  thoughtful.  A  falsehood  very 
little  in  bulk  may  undermine  a  great  principle,  and  on  the  other 
hand  the  establishment  of  facts  which  on  the  surface  do  not 
seem  very  important  may  lend  effectual  aid  to  truth.  The  wise  old 
fable  reminds  us  that  a  mouse  may  gnaw  the  meshes  of  the  net 
which  holds  the  lion. 

In  this  essay  we  aim  at  correcting  some  of  the  mistakes  and  mis- 
representations which  obscure  the  history  and  glory  of  our  Confes- 
sion. We  present  the  Annals  themselves,  carefully  arranged,  as 
the  best  witnesses  in  the  case,  and  have  attempted,  for  ourselves, 
little  more  than  directing  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  real 
meaning  and  force  of  the  testimony. 

'  f.  •43-I45- 


12  •  CHRONOLOGY.  [1529-1530. 

IV.    CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  PRELIMINARIES  TO  THE  PRE- 

PARATION  OF  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION, 

OCTOBER  I,  1529— MARCH  31,  1530. 

1529.  October  1-3. — The  Marburg  Colloquy  between  Luther 
and  Q^colampadius ;  and  Melanchthon  and  Zwingli. 

October  4. — Luther  draws  up  the  Fifteen  Articles,  fourteen  of 
nominal  agreement,  and  one  of  difference  between  the  Lutherans 
and  Zwinglians. 

October  16. — The  "  Articles  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  touch- 
ing the  faith,"  prepared  by  Luther  at  the  Elector's  request,  and 
laid  before  the  Assembly  of  the  States  at  Schwabach. 

1530.  January  6. — Convention  of  the  Protestants  at  Niirn- 
berg. 

January  12. — Melanchthon's  Letter  to  CEcolampadius  in  regard 
to  the  Lord's  Supper,  demonstrating  Melanchthon's  complete  accord 
with  Luther. 

January  21. — The  Emperor  sends  letters  from  Bologne  to  the 
Orders  of  Germany,  summoning  a  Diet  for  April  8.^ 

February  24. — Melanchthon's  "  Testimonies  of  the  ancient 
writers  in  regard  to  the  Holy  Supper"  is  published,  showing  his 
thorough  harmony  with  the  Lutheran  doctrine. 

March  6. — Melanchthon  expresses  his  disapproval  of  the  Zwin- 
glian  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

March  14. — Uuke  John,  Elector  of  Saxony,  by  advice  of  his 
Chancellor,  Bruck,  gives  the  command:  i.  That  the  Wittenberg 
theologians,  Luther,  Jonas,  Pomeranus,  and  Melanchthon,  shall  draw 
up  in  writing  the  heads  of  the  doctrines  and  of  the  Church-usages 
in  controversy,  for  the  Diet.  2.  That  they  shall  bring  the  writing 
to  Torgau  by  March  20th,  and  shall  get  ready  for  the  journey.- 

March  14-20. — i.  The  official  opinion  of  the  Wittenberg  theo- 
logians, who  were  summoned  to  Torgau  in  regard  to  the  contro- 
verted articles,  is  in  preparation." 

'Miiller:  Histoiie,  iii.  cli.  iii.  Wakli,  xvi.  747,  No.  890.  Forstemann,  1. 
No.  I. 

'Forstemann.  I.  Nos.  11,  12.  MuUer,  438.  Luther's  Werke  :  Leipzig,  xx. 
171.     Walch,  xvi.  763,  No.  897.     Corp.  Ref.,  II.  No.  671. 

»  Lulher's  Letter  of  March  14.     Briefe:    de  Wette,  ill.  564. 


1530.]  FORMATION.  "  I3 

ii.  Mclanchthon's  official  opinion  on  the  abuses  of  the  Romish 
Church.* 

March  15. — Melanchthon  writes  to  Aquila  reflecting  severely 
on  Carlstadt  and  the  Zvvinglian  cities. 

March  21. — i.  The  Elector  summons  Luther,  Melanchthon, 
Bugenhagen,  and  Jonas  to  Torgau.'* 

ii.   About  this  date  Jonas  writes  on  reforming  the  Church. 

March  26. — The  articles  "not  to  be  yielded"  are  determined  on. 
March  27. — Melanchthon  at  Torgau. 

V.  CHRONOLOGY    OF  THE    FORMATION    OF    THE   AUGSBURG 

CONFESSION,  FROM  ITS  INCEPTION,  TO  THE  STAGE  AT 

WHICH  MELANCHTHON  EXPRESSES  THE  DESIRE 

TO  BRING  IT  TO  LUTHER,  APRIL  3,  1530— 

MAY  4,  1530. 

1530.  April  2. — i.  Luther  writes  to  Hausmann,  pastor  at 
Zwickau  :  "  I  am  going  with  the  Prince  (the  Elector  John)  as  far  as 
Coburg,  and  Philip  and  Jonas  with  us,  until  it  shall  become  known 
what  will  be  attempted  at  Augsburg.  Let  your  church  pray  earn- 
estly for  the  Diet.'"  The  doubt  as  to  what  will  be  attempted  at 
Augsburg,  seems  to  imply  that  Luther  considered  it  far  from  cer- 
tain that  the  religious  c^uestions  would  really  be  thoroughly  taken 
up  at  the  Diet,  as  the  letter  following  shows: 

ii.  Luther  writes  to  Conrad  Cordatus:''  "As  to  your  wish, 
of  which  I  hear,  to  hasten  to  the  Diet,  I  would  entirely  dissuade 
you  from  it.  First,  Because  I  am  not  called  thither,  but  for  cer- 
tain reasons,  go  with  the  Prince  only  on  the  journey  through 
his  own  dominion.  Secondly,  The  cause  of  the  Gospel  will  hardly 
be  treated  of  at  all,  or  at  least  very  slowly,  as  the  Princes  are  not 
in  such  haste  in  a  matter  of  Religion,  but  will  give  precedence  to  the 
Turkish  Question.  At  a  fitting  time  you  can  hurry  tliither."  This 
letter  implies  that  one  motive  which  impelled  Cordatus  to  hurry  to 
Augsburg,  was  the  expectation  of  meeting  Luther  there.     The  words 

*  Forstemann  :   Urkundenbuch,  Nos.  27,  28. 

*  Forstemann,  i.  No.  29.     Coiji.  Ref.,  11.  No.  675. 

'  Coelesiinus,  i.  29.  Bu(l<leus,  2>i,  No.  109.  Walch,  xvi.  792,  No.  913. 
Briefe:    de  VVelte,  III.  566,  No.  II95.     Kollner,  169,  172,  2,  3. 

*  Cocleslin.,  i.  29.  Biiddeus,  84,  No.  no.  Walch,  xvi.  792,  No.  914.  Stro- 
be 1 ;  Miscellan.,  ni.  84.     De  Wette,  111.  567,  No.  1196. 


14  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

"  through  his  own  dominion,"  show  that  the  danger  to  be  incurred 
at  Augsburg  was  one  from  wliich  the  Elector  could  only  shield 
him  in  his  own  dominion — the  danger  connected  with  the  ban  of 
the  Empire  and  the  excommunication  of  the  Papal  Church.  Luther 
also  considered  it  doubtful  whether  the  questions  in  which  he  could 
take  part  would  come  up  a  tall,  and  considers  it  certain  that  in  any  case 
they  will  be  taken  up  last.  The  two  letters  of  this  date  show  that 
in  a  certain  state  of  things  the  ban  might  be  withdrawn  and  he 
might  yet  go  to  Augsburg.  Luther  alludes  to  the  "certain  reasons," 
without  specifying  them,  probably  because  he  felt  that  it  was  unneces- 
sary to  enter  into  them.     They  would  suggest  themselves. 

April  3. — i.  The  Elector  leaving  Torgau,  begins  the  journey  to 
Augsburg,  taking  his  theologians  with  him.     They  reach  Coburg. 

ii.  Melanchthon  begins  to  write  the  heads  of  doctrine  to  be  pre- 
.sented  at  the  Diet. 

April  8. — The  day  originally  fixed  for  the  opening  of  the  Diet 
of  Augsburg. 

April,  about  the  middle. — The  first  sketch  preliminary  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession  written  by  Melanchthon  at  Coburg. 

This  sketch  Bretschneider'  attempts  to  identify  with  the  Docu- 
ment first  published  by  Forstemann.*  Forstemann  believes  the 
Document  to  have  been  written  by  the  Wittenberg  theologians  March 
14-20.     Bretschneider's  view  is  approved  by  Carl  Schmid.'^ 

Apfil  16. — The  Council  of  Niirnberg  writes  to  the  Elector  of 
Saxony  in  terms  which  imply  their  expectation  tliat  he  will  bring 
Luther  with  him  to  Augsburg." 

April  17-25. — If  Melanchthon  had  foreseen  all  the  future  he 
could  hardly  have  been  more  intensely  active.  While  he  was  yet 
in  Coburg  (April  17-25)  he  was  laboring  on  the  "Exordium"  of 
the  Confession.' 

It  is  beyond  all  dispute  that  the  document  which  grew  into  the 
Augsburg  Confession  was  originally  designed  to  be  presented  in  the 
name  of  Saxony  alone.* 


*  Corp.  Reformator.,  iv.  985.  •*  Urkunclenlntcji,  I.  68-84. 

♦  Melanchthon,  197. 

•''Forstemann:   Urkundcnl).,   i.  140.      Kollner,  172-3. 

^Kollner,    170,  173  (8).     Corp.  Reformat.,  11.  No.  679.     Cliylracus.  Ilistor,, 
1-at.,  25-27.     Germ.,  27.      French,  25.     Coelestinus,  40.  b. 
*K6lhier,  169-173  (7). 


1530.]  FORMATION.  15 

It  was  in  this  case,  as  it  so  often  is,  indeed  nearly  always  is,  in 
human  life.  Time  is  the  guide  of  men,  and  the  execution  far 
transcends  the  draft. 

April  18. — Luther  writes  from  Coburg,  to  Nicolas  Hausmann  : 
"  You  will  let  Cordatus  know  that  we  are  still  here,  not  knowing 
when  we  shall  travel  further.  For  yesterday  cani-i  a  messenger  and 
a  letter,  from  which  we  learn  that  the  Emperor  remains  at  Mantua, 
and  is  to  celebrate  Easter  there.  It  is  said  besides  that  the  Papists 
spare  no  labor  to  prevent  the  Diet  from  going  on,  as  they  fear  that 
something  adverse  to  them  may  be  determined  on.  It  is  reported 
further  that  the  Pops  is  angry  with  the  Emperor  for  mixing  himself 
up  in  Church  matters,  and  giving  a  hearing  to  the  parties,  when  the 
Pope  was  hoping  that  he  would  be  a  mere  lictor  to  execute  sentence 
on  the  heretics,  and  to  restore  everything.  For  they  are  willing  to 
change  or  lose  nothing ;  they  are  not  willing  to  have  their  cause 
judged  or  investigated  :  they  would  simply  have  us  condemned  and 
ruined,  and  have  themselves  restored  to  everything.  Some  even 
think  that  the  Diet  will  be  entirely  revoked  and  that  nothing  will 
come  of  it.  I  am  commanded  by  the  Prince,  I  know  not  for  what 
reason,  to  remain  at  Coburg  when  the  others  depart."''  The  rea- 
son probably  was  that  the  Elector  had  grounds  for  the  anticipa- 
tion, which  was  destined  to  be  verified,  that  the  City  of  Augsburg 
would  not  grant  Luther  a  safe -conduct. 

April  21  or  22. — The  Elector,  with  Melanchthon,  Jonas,  Spal- 
atin  and  Agricola,  leaves  Coburg.  Luther  does  not  accompany 
them. 

April  22.  I.  Luther,  after  the  departure  of  the  Elector,  goes  to 
the  Citadel  of  Coburg.  Vitus  Theodorus  (Veit  Dietrich)  of  Niirn- 
berg  is  his  companion. 

2.  Luther  writes  to  Melanchth:)n,  "his  most  dear  brother,  faith- 
ful and  prudent  servant  and  disciple  of  Christ:"  "The  place  is  most 
pleasant  and  adapted  for  study,  except  that  your  absence  saddens 
it."'" 

April  23.  -Luther  writes  to  Wcnrislaus  Link,  at  Niirnberg : 
"We  sit  idle  here  at  Coburg,  tmcertain  in  regard  to  the  Diet  and  the 


"Coeleslin.  i,  29.     BucUleus,  84.     Walch,  xvi.  79+.     De  WeUe,  iv.  i.    No. 
1199.     Kollncr,  172-3. 
"Coelestiii.  i.  39.  BiuUknis,  85.  Walcli,  xvi.  2827.  De  WeUe  iv.  2.     No.  12CO. 


l6  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

coming  of  the  Emperor ;  you  perhaps  have  more  certain  informa- 
tion. Though  the  others,  my  intimates,  have  gone  to  Augsburg, 
the  Prince  wishes  me  to  remain  here.  You  will  see  them — Philip, 
Jonas,  Eisleben,  Spalatin.  If  the  Diet  should  go  on,  you  will  get 
all  the  particulars  from  them.'"'  This  letter  notes  doubt  as  to  the 
carrying  out  of  the  Diet;  yearning  for  his  "  sodales,"  his  bosom 
companions. 

April  24. — Luther  writes  to  Eobanus  Hess,  at  Niirnberg  :  "To 
his  most  dear  brother,  most  illustrious  Poet  of  Germany  :"  "I  send 
to  you  at  one  time,  four  Letters,  living  and  speaking,  nay,  most 
eloquent  letters,  Justus,  Philip,  Spalatin  and  Agricola.  I  would  wil- 
lingly be  the  fifth,  but  there  was,  who  said  to  me,  '  Keep  quiet,  you 
have  a  bad  voice.'  "     The  whole  tone  of  the  letter  is  playful. '- 

April  28. — The  Elector  and  theologians  leave  Niirnberg  for 
Augsburg. 

April  29. — Luther  writes  to  Melanchthon  :  '"There  is  no  news 
here,  except  that  we  wonder  that  no  letters  have  to  this  time  come 
from  you.  T  wrote  the  day  we  were  separated.  My  'Exhortation 
to  the  Clergy'  grows  under  my  hand.'"^ 

April  30 — May  12. — The  Exhortation  of  Luther  to  the  Clergy 
assembled  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg  is  finished,  and  sent  to  Witten- 
berg to  be  printed.'^ 

April  30. — The  city  of  Augsburg  furnishes  a  letter  of  safe-con- 
duct to  the  Elector  John  of  Saxony ;  in  this,  after  guaranteeing 
safety  to  him  and  to  those  who  should  accompany  him,  the  safe- 
conduct  goes  on  to  say  :  "But  we  make  an  exception,  if  His  Elec- 
toral Grace  should  have  with  him  and  bring  hither  any  one  who  has 
broken  the  peace  of  His  Imperial  Majesty  and  of  the  Holy  Empire, 
and  become  liable  to  penalty  and  punishment ;  to  such  an  one  «we 
have  no  power  to  grant  a  safe-conduct.'"'' 

Forstemann  remarks  on  this  :     "It  is  beyond  doubt  that  Luther 


■"Coelestin.,  i.  30.   Buddeus,  86.   Walch,  xvi.  796.   De  Weite,  iv.  5.   No  1202. 

i^Briefe:  De  Welle,  iv.  6,  No.  1203. 

i3Biuldeus,  88.     Walch,  xvi.  2828.     De  Wette,  iv.  10,  No.  1207. 

'■•Lullier's  Werke  :  Jena,  v.  114.  Altenli.,  v.  201.  Leipz.,  xx.  146.  Walch, 
xvi.  1 120.      I'>lanj^en,  xxiv.  329.    Cli) tiaeiis,  189  [323].     Coele-.lin.,  ii.  253. 

'^Miiller,  454.  Walch,  xvi.  786,  No.  907.  Forstemann,  i.  160,  161,  No. 
61.      Kollner,  172,  3. 


1530.  J  FORMATION.  1 7 

is  mainly  referred  to  in  this  proviso  of  the  city  of  Augsburg  (which 
might  indeed  have  been  anticipated  long  before),  and  it  is  probable 
^that  it  was  the  special  occasion  of  Luther's  being  left  at  Coburg." 
The  anticipation  of  it  may  have  led  to  Luther  being  left  behind, 
April  22, 'and  it  certainly  settled  the  question  as  to  Luther's  coming 
to  Augsburg  at  a  later  period. 

May  I. — Melanchthon  at  Donauwerth. 

May  2. — The  Elector  with  his  theologians  and  suite  enters  Augs- 
burg. Spalatin  makes  the  date  May  i,'"  which  was  Misericordias 
Sunday,  but  May  2  is  the  recognized  date.'" 

The  Elector's  suite  contained  three  princes  (Fursten),  who  in  the 
distinctive  sense  of  the  word  Princes,  as  correspondent  with  Fiirsten, 
were  the  only  Protestant  Princes  with  the  Elector,  up  to  May  1 1 . 
The  first  of  these  three  was  John  Frederick,  son  of  the  Elector,  and 
a  titulary,  not  a  reigning  prince.  The  second  was  Francis  of  Lline- 
berg,  also  a  titulary  prince  only.  The  third  was  Wolffgang,  of  An- 
halt,  who  had  not  received  a  summons  to  the  Diet  from  the  Emperor. 
Both  Francis  and  Wolffgang  came  in  the  character  of  persons  in  the 
service  (Diener)  of  the  Elector.'*  There  were  beside  "  Counts, 
Barons,  and  other  nobles""*  not  counted  as  "Princes,"  and  taking 
no  part  in  the  Confession  or  the  Diet. 

Melanchthon  began  his  work  at  Augsburg  under  the  direction  of 
the  Elector  alone.  He  laid  under  this  direction  the  XVH 
Schwabach-Torgau  Articles  of  Luther,  as  the  basis  of  the  doctrinal 
part  of  the  Confession,  and  the  Wittenberg  sketches  as  the  basis  of 
the  Articles  on  abuses.  There  had  probably  been  an  understanding 
at  Torgau  among  the  theologians  as  to  the  general  features  of  the 
document  which  was  to  be  prepared  for  presentation  by  the  Elector 
to  the  Emperor.-" 

May  4. — i.  On  May  4th  Melanchthon  wrote  to  Luther  :  "  Beside 
our  Prince  no  other  prince  is  present.  I  have  made  the  exordium 
of  the  Apology  somewhat  more  finished  in  style  than  as  I  wrote  it  at 

i*Annales,  131. 

^'Ain  Kurtze  Anzayg.  in  Cyprian's  Beylagen,vi.  7S.  Coele.stiaus,3i.  MUller, 
465. 

18 MUller,  456,  87. 

"C.  P.  Krauth:  "Relation  of  Our  Confessions."  Evang.  Ref.,OiX.,  1849, 
p.  249. 

"0  Kollner,  170,  173,  10. 
2 


1 8  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

Coburg.  In  a  short  time  I  will  bring  it ;  or,  if  the  Prince  will  not 
permit  me  to  do  that,  I  will  send  it."-^ 

In  this  letter  it  is  worthy  of  note  that,  although  the  suite    of  the- 
Elector  embraced  his  son  and  two  other  Princes,  Melanchtl^on  speaks 
of  the  Elector  as  the  only  Prince  present. 

But  there  is  anot  her  point  which  demands  an  attention  which  has 
not  been  given  it.  The  "exordium"  has  been  considered  as  the 
"preface,"  the  "proem,"-  "prelude."  Melanchthon  was  hardly 
likely  to  call  a  "prjefatio,"  or  preface  proper,  an  exordium.  The 
preface  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  not  written  until  after  the 
Confession  was  finished,  and  is  the  work  of  Pontanus.  May  not 
the  "  Exordium"  of  the  Apology  be  the  summary  of  doctrine  based 
on  the  XVII  Schwabach-Torgau  Articles  ?  Melanchthon,  in  the 
days  at  Coburg,  had  made  his  first  draught  of  the  elaborated  state- 
ment. At  Augsburg  he  had  given  his  draught  more  finish  of  style', 
as  he  writes  May  4.  That  Melanchthon  should  have  proposed  to 
travel  from  Augsburg  to  Coburg  and  back,  to  consult  Luther  in 
person  about  the  style  of  a  mere  preface  is  absurd.  But  the  true 
view  of  the  "pLxordium"  makes  the  whole  matter  perfectly  clear.-* 
This  letter  also  shows  that  at  this  time  the  whole  matter  lay  be- 
tween Melanchthon  and  the  Elector. 

ii.  On  the  same  day  Melanchthon  wrote  to  Vitus  Theodorus,  who 
was   with    Luther    at    Coburg:    "The  Emperor  is  expected  in  a 

short  time I  beg  you  to  write  to  me  daily,  and  in  a 

short  time  I  will  run  over  to  you,  that  I  may  bring  to  the  Doctor 
(Luther^,  in  order  that  he  may  revise  it,  the  Apology  which  is  to  be 
presented  to  the  Emperor."-'' 

This  shows  that  the  dociuiient  was  ready  which  Melanchthon  ex- 
pected to  have  delivered  to  the  Emperor,  and  that  none  but  the 
Elector,  Luther,  and  himself  had  the  matter  at  this  time  in  their 


^1  Praeter  nostrum  nullus  alius  princeps  adest.  Ego  exordium  nostrce  Apologia; 
feci  aliquanto  pr/ropiKUTspov,  (juani  Coburga:  scripseram.  Brevi  autem  ipse 
afTeram  aut,  si  id  non  permittct  princeps,  mittam.  Corp.  Ref.  II.  No.  679. 
Chytraeus:   Lat.,  26,  27.     Coeleslinus,  39,  b,  40. 

^''^  Chytraeus:  Lat.,  proemium.     Ger.,  Vorrede  :  Fr.,  preambule,  preface. 

''^  Chytraeus:  Ut  autem  articulos  confessionis,  ita  proemium  etiam  con- 
fessioni  praeponendum, quod  CoburgaePhilippus com posuerat,Augustce  retcxuit." 
He  then  cites  the  letter  of  May  4th  in  evidence. 

"  Corp.  Reform.,  II.  No.  680. 


1530.]  DF.VELOPMENT.  1 9 

hands.  It  shows,  too,  that  the  exordium  was  written  after  the 
"Apology."  The  Apology  was  the  defensive  portion,  to  which  the 
doctrinal  articles  in  their  then  relatively  limited  form  were  to 
constitute  the  exordium. 

Both  parts  were  in  their  earliest  stage.  In  its  earlier  period  the 
character  of  the  Augustana  as  a  Confession  was  entirely  subordinate 
to  its  character  as  an  apology.  Even  as  it  stands  now,  the  Confes- 
sional part  is  in  bulk  little  more  than  an  exordium  to  the  apologetic 
part,  which  begins  in  some  sense  with  Article  XVIII.,  and  is 
marked  in  the  words:  "Ours  are  falsely  accused,"  Article 
XX. ;  and  which,  from  the  Apology  of  doctrines  assailed,  passes 
in  the  articles  on  abuses,  to  the  points  in  which  the  Confessors 
desired  to  make  their  Apology  a  defence  of  their  correction, of 
abuses.  The  part  strictly  Confessional  is  about  in  the  ratio  of 
six  to  twenty-six  to  the  strictly  apologetic  part.  It  still  retains  in 
some  degree  its  original  character.  It  is  a  Confessional  Exordium 
to  an  Apologetic  document,  yet  with  such  a  comprehensive  sum- 
mary of  doctrine  that,  despite  its  brevity,  it  stamps  the  whole 
document  precisely  with  the  characteristics  marked  by  Melanch- 
thon,  when  calling  it  (May  1 1)  an  apology,  he  adds:  "though  it 
may  more  truly  be  called  a  Confession." 

iii.  On  the  same  day  Melanchthon  writes  to  Catherine,  wife  of 
Luther:  "We  left  the  Doctoral  Coburg,  but  I  hope  to  see  him 
before  long.""  Melanchthon  was  full  of  desire  to  confer  with 
Luther  in  person.  And  the  document  he  designed  to  submit  to 
.him  was  the  document  which  he  expected  to  have  laid  before  the 
Emperor. 

VI.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  AUGSBURG 
CONFESSION,  FROM    THE    ELABORATION   OF   ITS  EXOR- 
DIUM  TO  THE  REDUCTION   OF   IT   TO   THE   "FORM" 
SENT   TO  LUTHER  AND  APPROVED  BY  HIM, 
.  MAY  5— MAY   15. 

May  5. — i.  Melanchthon  writes  to  Camerarius  at  Niirnberg :  "  If 
you  have  anything  to  say  to  Luther,  or  to  send  to  him,  give  it  to  this 
messenger  who  carries  this  letter."  There  are  many  proofs  that 
Niirnberg  was  made  a  connecting  link  in  the  correspondence  be- 
tween Augsburg  and  Coburg. 

«Corp.  Ref.,  II.  No.  681. 


20  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

ii.  In  the  same  letter  Melanchthon  speaks  severely  of  Bucer  and 
the  intriguing  tendency  he  represented,  and  his  lack  of  the  true 
doctrine  of  justification  by  faith. "^ 

iii.  May  5,  Melanchthon  Avrote  to  Frederick,  Abbot  at  Niirnberg  : 
''The  Emperor  is  at  Innspruck,  and  hence,  they  think,  that  in  a 
short  time  he  will  come  hither.  There  is  no  other  Prince  here  ex- 
cept ours."' 

May  8. — i.  John  Dolzius,  one  of  the  Electoral  Counsellors, 
who  had  been  sent  to  the  Emperor  by  the  Elector,  writes  to  him 
from  Oenipont,  May  8,  a  letter  which  throughout  implies  that  at 
that  time  the  Elector  stood  alone  in  the  preparation  to  present  the 
Augustana.^ 

•ii.  Luther  writes  to  Wencislaus  Link,  at  Niirnberg,  where 
he  was  the  first  Evangelical  Lutheran  Preacher,  regularly  called  : 
"  I  do  not  deny  that  I  should  gladly  have  seen  you"  (by  coming 
to  Niirnberg,  with  the  others),  "but  what  pleases  God,  pleases  me 
also ;  nor  am  I  ignorant  that  on  this  journey  I  am  entirely  use- 
less, and  perhaps  would  have  done  more  good  by  staying  at  home 
and  teaching,  but  it  was  not  lawful  for  me  to  resist  him  who  called 
me."* 

May  g. — Luther  writes  to  Spalatin  his  sketch  for  the  Diet  of  the 
Daws,  in  its  parallels  and  contrasts  with  the  forthcoming  Diet  at 
Augsburg — one  of  the  finest  pieces  of  refined  and  sustained  humor 
in  the  history  of  literature.^ 

May  II. — On  May  nth,  Melanchthon  wrote  to  Luther  "his 
most  dear  father"  :  "There  is  sent  to  you  our  Apology,  though 
it  is  more  truly  a  Confession.  For  the  Emperor  has  not  leisure  to 
listen  to  extended  discussions.  I  have  nevertheless  said  those  things 
which  I  judged  to  be  most  profitable  or  becoming.  With  this  de- 
sign I  have  embraced  nearly  all  the  Articles  of  faith,  for  Eck  has 
put  forth  the  most  diabolical  slanders  against  us.  I  wished  to  oppose 
a  remedy  to  them.     .     .     .     You  will  judge  of  the  whole  writing 

1  Corp.  Kef.,  il.  42,  No.  682. 

2  Corp.  Ref.,  ll.  No.  683. 

'  Corp.  Ref.  n.  684.     Seckendorf  :    Hist.  Lutheran.,  Ii.  156. 

*Coelestin.  I.  37.  Buddeus,  89.  Walch,  xvi.  2829.  De  Wette,  iv.  11,  No. 
1209. 

^Coelestinus,  I.  38.  Buddeus,  90.  Cliytraeus,  Germ.  77.  Walch,  xvi.  2128. 
De  Wette,  iv.  12,  No.  1210. 


1530.]  DEVELOPMENT.  21 

in  accordance  with  your  spirit.     .     .     .     We  do  not  think  that  the 
Emperor  will  reach  Augsburg  under  fourteen  days."® 

There  are  several  things  worthy  of  note  in  Melanchthon's  letter 
to  Luther  : 

1.  It  implies  an  important  change  in  the  Augustana.  May  4,  to 
Luther,  he  calls  it  without  reservation  an  Apology  ;  the  same  day,  he 
gives  it  the  same  name  to  Vitus.  Up  to  May  11,  there  is  no  his- 
toric evidence  that  the  name  Confession,  had  ever  been  applied  to 
it.  Melanchthon  now  calls  it  indeed  "Our  Apology,"  but  inti- 
mates that  it  is  "more  truly  a  Confession."  What  follows  implies 
a  condensation  of  the  matter.  It  implies  that  this  condensed  mat- 
ter had  taken  the  place  of  the  "prolix  disputations,"  which  had 
been  prepared,  some  of  them  very  extended,  by  the  Wittenberg 
theologians,  on  the  points  in  dispute  between  the  Romanists  and 
Lutherans.  This  part  of  the  matter  forming  the  Apology  in  the 
distinctive  sense,  Melanchthon  had  been  contracting,  ridding  of 
superfluities  and  simplifying.  The  undisputed  articles  of  faith 
would  require  only  a  simple  statement.  Prolix  disputation  would 
be  possible  only  in  the  Apologetic  part.  This  part  has  been  thrown, 
relatively  to  its  old  preponderance,  into  the  back-ground.  The 
Augustana  is  not  to  be  so  exclusively  as  in  its  inception,  an  Apol- 
ogy. But  the  other  element,  too  much  subordinated,  is  now  brought 
into  relief,  so  that  the  document  has  become  "  more  truly  a 
Confession."  Melanchthon  distinctly  states  by  what  process.  In 
deciding  what  is  most  profitable  and  fitting,  he  has  "  brought  to- 
gether about  all  the  articles  of  faith."  He  has  enlarged  the  num- 
ber of  topics  treated  of  in  Luther's  XVII  articles,  and  to  the  dia- 
bolical slanders  of  Eck,  who  charged  the  Lutherans  with  departing 
from  all  the  articles  of  faith,  he  puts  forth  the  remedy,  in  the  form 
of  an  assertion  of  these  articles.  This  ampler  treatment  of  the  faith, 
makes  a  change  of  vast  significance  :  that  which  had  been  in  an  im- 
portant sense  a  Confession  but  more  truly  an  Apology,  now  remains 
in  an  important  sense  an  Apology,  but  is  more  truly  a  Confes- 
sion. This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  force  which  we  have  tried  to 
show  best  fits  the  word  "  Exordium,"  in  the  letter  of  May  4. 

2.  The  same  day,  Melanchthon  writes  to  Vitus  Theodorus,  who 


*Corp.  Ref.,  i.  No.  685.  Chytraeus,  Lnt.,  31.  Germ.,  29.  French,  28.  Coel- 
estinus,  i.  41.  Walch,  xvi.  No.  904.  For  the  "pro  tuo  spiritu,"  see  Madvig's 
Latin  Grammar,  sec.  446. 


2  2  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

was  with  Luther:  "  The  Landgrave  (PhiUp  of  Hesse),  it  is  said,  will 
be  here  to-day  or  to-morrow.  We  are  no  less  monks  than  you  are 
in  that  castle  of  yours;  For  we  see  nothing  here,  we  hear  nothing, 
which  indeed  is  a  pleasure  to  us."^  (Implying  that  it  is  better  to 
hear  nothing,  than  to  hear  the  disagreeable  things  they  were 
likely  to  hear — the  molesta  of  the  sentence  which  follows). 

3.  On  the  same  day,  May  ii,  the  Elector  John  wrote  to 
Luther:*  ''After  that  you  and  our  other  learned  men  at  Wit- 
tenberg, on  our  gracious  request  and  desire,  had  brought  into  a 
draught  (Lat.  had  sketched  in  a  brief  writing)  the  Articles  of  (our) 
Religion,  which  are  in  dispute  (are  controverted)  :  We  would  not 
conceal  from  you,  that  now,  in  this  place  ( Augsburg ),  Philip 
Melanchthon,  Magister,  has  further  (again)  revised  the  same,  and 
has  drawn  them  into  a  form,  which  we  hereby  (with  this)  send  to 
you.  And  it  is  our  gracious  desire  that  you  would  not  deem  it  a 
burden  further  to  revise  and  ponder  the  same  (the  Articles).  And 
whether  it  please  you  to  such  a  degree  (Lat.:  Fr.:  And  whether  they 
please  you  as  they  are  written)  or  you  think  proper  to  take  away 
from  it,  or  add  to  it,  you  will  at  the  same  time  note  it  in  writing,  so 
that  we  may  then  be  furnished  and  prepared  for  the  arrival  of  His 
Imperial  Majesty,  which  we  shortly  expect,  and  then  send  us  again 
hither  the  Articles  immediately,  by  this  messenger,  well-secured  and 
sealed." 

From  this  letter  it  is  evident  that  the  whole  matter  at  this  date 
was  in  the  hands  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony.  He  was  acting  in  en- 
tire independence  of  all  the  other  estates.  The  Confession  was 
solely  in  the  name  of  Saxony.  It  implies  that  so  far  the  work 
upon  it  at  Augsburg  had  been  confined  to  Melanchthon,  and  that 
when  Luther  gave  the  stamp  of  his  approval,  everything  was  ready 
for  the  presentation  to  the  Emperor.  Kollner  :  "  Manifestly  Sax- 
ony was  still  acting  in  entire  independence.  Up  to  this  time  the 
Confession  was  prepared  in  the  name  of  the  elector  alone.'"    The 


'Corp.  Ref.  11.  No.  686. 

^Corp.  Reformator..  il.  No.  687.  Luther:  Weike:  Jena,  1566,  V.  21I). 
Leipzig,  XX.  173.  \Vaich,XVl.  785.  ("hytracus:  (}erm.,  28.  Lat.,  30.  French, 
28.  Coelestinus,  40.  b.  Grondliche  liistoria  :  Germ.,  1 10.  Lat.,  136.  Miiller, 
519.  Cyprian.  Beylagen,  xili.  168.  Forslemann,  i.  190,  No.  74.  KoUner,  173, 
13.     Calanich.,  1 1. 

»I7I. 


1530.]  DEVELOPMENT.  23 

power  of  Luther  over  the  document  is  made  unUmited  and  final. 
He  can  add,  cut  off,  or  change.  Do  what  he  will,  it  is  "  thefi" 
ready  for  the  Emperor.  No  trace  is  here  of  any  participation  at 
Augsburg  of  the  theologians,  who  came  with  the  elector.  The 
three  Princes  (John,  Philip  Melanchthon  and  Luther),  deter- 
mine it  among  themselves.  No  prince  of  a  lower  order,  or  offi- 
cial (of  the  cities)  had  yet  taken  part.  At  least  more  than  a  half 
of  the  ultimate  signers  were  yet  absent — if  we  throw  out  John  Fred- 
erick and  Francis,  only  two  out  of  nine  were  there.  The  parties 
were  not  there ;  those  that  were  there  were  not  yet  involved  in  any 
plan  which  could  lead  to  conjoint  discussion.  It  is  not  an  overstate- 
ment to  say  that  to  refer  Melanchthon's  description  in  1560  to  the 
period  before  May  11  is  simply  impossible  on  the  part  of  any  one 
who  has  used  the  means  of  verifying  the  genuine  chronology  and 
succession  of  events. 

May  12. — I.  Luther  writes  to  Melanchthon  :  ''  I  should  very  will- 
ingly have  written  to  the  younger  Prince"  (John  Frederic  of  Saxony) 
"as  you  wish  in  regard  to  the  Macedonian"  (Philip  of  Hesse). 

2.  Luther's  impression  of  the  excessive  labor  through  which  he 
believes  Melanchthon  is  passing  is  expressed  in  the  same  letter  :  "I 
command  you,  and  I  charge  all  our  nearest  friends,  that  under  an 
anathema  they  compel  you  to  observe  the  rules  of  bodily  health, 
lest  you  become  a  self-murderer,  under  pretence  that  you  are 
obeying  the  will  of  God.  For  God  is  also  served  by  rest — nay,  in 
nothing  is  He  more  served  than  by  rest ;  therefore,  would  He 
have  the  Sabbath  observed  so  rigidly  before  other  things.  See  that 
you  do  not  esteem  (it)  lightly.     It  is  God's  Word  I  am  writing."'" 

3.  Philip,  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  entered  Augsburg.  His  name  is 
fourth  among  the  signers  of  the  Confession. '^ 

May  15. — I.  Luther  sends  back  "Philip's  Apology"  with  his 
cordial  and  unreserved  approval — nothing  added ;  nothing  taken 
away;  nothing  changed ;  nothing  suggested.'^ 

'"Coaleslin.  I.  41,6.  Buddeus,  92.  Walch,  xvi.  28,  31.  De  WeUe,  IV.  14. 
No  1211. 

"  Kollncr,  173,  12. 

'2  Luther:  Werke:  Jena,  v.  22.  Leipz.,  xx.  143.  Walcli,  xvi.  7S5,Xo.  906. 
Erlangen,  54,  145,  No.  316.  Chytraeus:  Germ.,  30,  Lat.,  32.  French,  29. 
Coelestinus,  42  h.  Griindlich.  Ilistor.,  IIO:  Lat.,  137.  Cyprian  :  Beylage,  170, 
XV.  Buddeus, 93,  No.  1 19.  De  Wetle,  iv.  17,  No.  1213.  Conservative  Reformat., 
223-227. 


24  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

2.  The  Niirnberg  Legates  arrive."  They  bring  a  Confession 
written  by  the  preachers  of  Niirnberg.  Melanchthon  is  pleased 
with  it. 


VII.    THE  CHRONOLOGY  OF   THE   AUGSBURG  CONFESSION 

FROM  MAY  i6  TO  THE  SECOND  SENDING  OF  IT 

TO  LUTHER,  MAY  22. 

May  16. — The  Elector  indicated  to  the  Legates  of  Niirnberg 
that  the  Confession  was  ready,  though  not  entirely  closed,  as  it  had 
been  sent  to  Luther  for  examination. 

May  17. — I.  Kress  and  Volkamer,  Legates  from  Niirnberg, 
write  to  the  Senate  of  their  city  that  they  had  begun  their  duties 
(yesterday,  May  i6)  by  making  inquiry  into  the  movements  of  the 
Elector  of  Saxony  in  the  "matter  of  the  faith."  Kress  learned 
from  the  Chancellor  that  the  Elector,  "  though  he  had  ht^w  first  of 
all  ready  with  his  Counsel  concerning  this  Article  "  (of  the  faith), 
"and  that  consequently  the  same  (Counsel)  had  been  put  into  writing 
in  German  and  Latin,  yet  that  it  had  not  yet  been  finally  closed, 
and  had  been  sent  to  Doctor  Luther  to  examine,  and  that  it  was 
expected  that  it  would  be  back  from  him  to-morrow  or  the  day  after 
(May  17  or  i8),  and  he  (the  Chancellor)  did  not  doubt  that  when 
the  aforesaid  proposition  (the  Counsel)  came,  a  copy  of  it  would  be 
given  to  us  if  we  requested  it.'" 

2.  Later  in  the  day  Kress  and  Volkamer  write  again,  stating 
that  after  finishing  the  previous  letter,  the  Chancellor  of  the  Elector 
had  sent  for  them  and  informed  them  that  "  His  Electoral  Grace 
would  abide  by  the  answer  of  the  Chancellor  of  the  previous  evening, 
to  wit :  that  as  soon  as  the  Counsel  (Rathschlag)  came  back  from 
Luther  it  should  be  furnished  to  us."  \\\  the  same  letter  they 
mention  that  at  the  mandate  of  the  Elector  they  then  entered  in 
the  Counsel  of  the  Niirnberg  preachers. - 

May  20. — 1 .  Luther  writes  (according  to  the  received  date)  to 
Philip,  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  urging  him  not  to  take  part  with  the 

"Strobel  Miscellan.,  II.  22. 

1  Corp.  Rcf.,  II.  No.  690. 

^  Do.,  II.  691.      Fikenscher,  52.      Kollner,  175,  25. 


1530.]  MAY  16-22.  25 

Zwinglians.''    See  June  20,  which  is  ahiiost  beyond  doubt  the  cor- 
rect date,  and  June  13. 

2.  The  Niirnberg  Legates  write  to  the  Senate  :  "The  Counsel  of 
theNiirnberg  preachers  (handed  in  May  17),  which  we  presented  a 
few  days  ago  to  the  Chancellor  of  the  Elector,  Philip  Metanch- 
thon  has  examined,  who  after  so  doing  said  that  it  was  not  adverse 
to  theirs,  but  almost  the  same  in  meaning,  but  that  their  Counsel 
was  yet  milder  than  that  of  your  preachers."* 

3.  Luther  writes  to  the  Elector  John  in  reply  to  the  first  letter 
written  to  him  by  the  Elector  from  Augsburg.  Both  letters  imply 
the  completest  affection,  respect,  and  good  understanding  of  both 
to  each  other. ^ 

May  21.  I. — The  Niirnberg  Legates  write:  "No  city  of  the 
Confederation  is  here,  except  one  legate  from  Reutlingen,  who  has 
jiotified  us  of  his  presence,  and  gives  us  to  understand  that  the  au- 
thorities who  sent  him  will  adhere,  as  of  fore  time,  to  the  Elector 
of  Saxony,  and  to  your  E.xcellencies  in  the  matter  of  the  faith. '"^ 

2.  Melanchthon  writes  to  Camerarius  at  Niirnberg  :  "I  have  pre- 
pared an  Apology,  written  with  the  greatest  modesty,  nor  do  I 
think  it  possible  to  speak  of  these  things  more  mildly." 

3.  Urban  Rhegius,  Evangelical  Pastor  at  Augsburg,  writes  to 
Luther :  "  Daily,  when  my  occupations  permit,  I  have  talks  with 
those  you  love  so  dearly,  Philip,  Jonas,  Isleben  (Agricola),  Spalatin. 
Nor  have  I  now  any  other  relief  of  my  studies,  than  those  very 
learned  conversations  with  these  men.  If  you  were  present  with 
them,  my  joy  would  be  full.  Christ  grant  that  I  may  very  soon  see 
you." 

^Luther's  Werke :  Jena,  v.  22b — 23b.  Leipzig,  xx.  180.  Walch,  xvii. 
2379,  No.  XXXV.  Eriangen,  54,  151,  No.  318  .  Buddeus,  99-103,  No.  122  . 
Lat.  (gives  tlie  date  May  22).  De  Wette,  iv.  23,  No.  1216.  Ciiytraeus  dates 
it  May  30,  and  says  it  was  written  in  consequence  of  Melanchthon's  request  in 
the  letter  of  May  22, q.  v.  Gerni.,3il)-33b.  Coelestinu^,  44-46,  dates  it  May 
22.     Muller,  576-579. 

*  Corp.  Ref.,  11.  56,  No.  693.  Camerarius  (Vita  Meiancli.  ed  Strobel), 
121.     Strobel,  Miscellan.,  11.  25.     Fikenscher,  53.     Kollner,  175,  26. 

*  Luther's  Werke:  Altenb.,  v.  23.  Leipzig,  xx.  172.  Walch,  xvi.  819. 
Briefe:  De  Wette,  IV.  20.  lulangen,  54,  No.  317.  Chytraeus,  26b.  Coeles- 
linus,  I.  47.     Buddeus,  95. 

^Corp.  Reformat.   11.  56,     No.  694.  "Corp.  Reformat.   57,     No.  695. 


26  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

"  The  Prince  of  Hesse  lately  invited  me  to  breakfast  with  him.  I 
have  conceived  hope  concerning  Hesse  that  he  will  not  reject  the 
sound  counsels  of  Philip  and  of  others."® 

This  letter  shows  that  up  to  May  21,  the  intercourse  of  Rhegius 
with  the  Saxon  theologians  (he  does  not  mention  the  others  at  all) 
was  purely  personal.  But  in  the  after  elaboration  of  the  Confession 
"  Melanchthon  took  into  his  counsels  the  other  theologians,  besides 
Brenz,"  (and  May  27)  "especially  Rhegius,  who  in  this  way  also 
had  his  share  in  this  work,  a  work  which  in  its  mildness  and  pro- 
pitiating character,  its  effort  to  bring  into  view  a  genuine  Catholicity, 
the  Unity  with  the  Ancient  Church,  so  distinctly  corresponds  with 
Rhegius's  own  character.  It  was  thus  most  peculiarly  his  own  Con- 
fession, and  he  loved,  at  a  later  period,  to  boast  that  he  had  borne 
part  in  making  this  Confession.'''"'^ 

May  22. — I.  Melanchthon  writes  to  Luther:  "In  the  Apol- 
ogy we  are  daily  changing  many  things ;  the  part  concerning  Vows, 
as  it  was  more  meagre  than  is  right,  I  have  taken  out ;  another  dis- 
cussion of  the  same  topic,  a  little  more  full,  being  substituted  for  it. 
I  now  also  am  discussing  concerning  the  Power  of  the  Keys.  I  wish 
you  would  run  over  the  Articles  of  Faith,  in  which,  if  you  should 
think  there  is  nothing  of  fault,  we  shall  treat  the  rest  as  we  best 
may  (utcunque).  For  they  are  from  time  to  time  to  be  changed, 
and  adapted  to  the  occasions.  The  Macedonian  (Philip  of  Hesse),  is 
now  moving  that  he  may  subscribe  the  document  of  ours,  and  seems 
as  if  he  could  be  drawn  back  to  ours,  but  there  is  need  of  your  let- 
ters. I  therefore  urgently  beg  of  you  to  write  to  him,  not  to  burden 
his  conscience  with  the  defence  of  any  impious  dogma"  (Zwinglian- 
ism).  This  letter  shows  that  there  has  yet  been  no  general  movement. 
The  Confession  is  still  confined  to  Saxony.  Melanchthon  is  laboring 
alone,  and  changing  at  his  pleasure.  He  is  approaching  the  end  of 
the  Articles  on  Abuses ;  Vows  and  the  Power  of  the  Keys  being  the 
last  things  treated  in  those  Articles.  Philip  of  Hesse  is  showing  a 
disposition  to  unite  in  the  Saxon  Confession,  but  with  some  proviso, 
which  can  not  be  allowed.  Luther  is  appealed  to  to  influence  him 
to  a  decided  stand  against  Zwinglianism,  without  which  his  subscrip- 
tion cannot  be  allowed. 


^Corp.  Refoimator.,  11.  58,  No.  697. 
"  Uhlhorn  :  Urban  Rhegius,  153. 


1530. J  MAY   16-22.  27 

a.  This  letter  of  Melanchthon  lias  been  cited  from  the  earliest 
period  without  a  challenge  or  doubt  on  any  point  involving  the 
clearness  and  value  of  its  historical  character.  It  is  cited  in  the 
earliest  and  latest  Histories  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  ;  in  Chy- 
traeus;^"  Kirchner,  Selneccer  and  Chemnitz" — both  of  them  pupils  of 
Melanchthon  — Coelestinus/'^  Calovius/^  Seckendorf/*  Mains, '^  J.  J, 
Muller/"  Frick,"  Junius-Roos-Seckendorf/*  Loscher,''-'  Cyprian,''^" 
Saligr^  John  George  Walch,^^  C.  G.  F.  Walch,^^  Strobel/^  G.  G. 
Weber,-'^  Danz,^«  Hammerschmidt,^'  Kollner/^^  Ukert,-'-"  J.  T.  Miil- 
ler,^"  Ledderhose,^^  Gieseler/^  Kostlin,^^  Oehler,^^  Engelhardt,'** 
Z6ckler,"'«  Francke,'''  I.  A.  H.  Tittmann,''*  Burkhardt.^'' 

It  is  given  in  the  collections  of  Melanchthon's  Epistles,'"  in  the 
best  collections  of  documentary  matter  bearing  on  the  History  of 
the  Reformation,"  and  in  all  the  larger  histories  of  the  Confession. 

b.  The  letter  of  May  2 2d  was  regarded  from  the  beginning  as 
indisputable  proof  of  a  second  sending  of  the  Confession  to  Luther, 
(^hytraeus  :  "Though  the  form  of  the  Confession  rewoven  at  Augs- 
burg  was  then  (May   15)  approved   by  Luther,  yet   Melanchthon 

1"  German,  30  b.     Latin,  32,  ^2-     French,  29,  30. 

"Griindl.  Hist.,  Germ.,  III.     Lat.,  137.  ^^pjj^toria,  I.  44. 

^^Criticus  Sacer,  23,  80.  ^*  Commentar.  Lib.,  il.  181. 

^^Histor.  Reform.,  319.     .Synopsis,  27.  ^^Historie,  520. 

1' Ausfiihrliche  Historic  (in  many  respects  independent  of  Seckendoi'f,  whom 
it  professes  to  translate),  1025. 

'^Reform.  Gesch.,  I.  541.  i^Historia  Motiunn,  I.  160. 

^ORistoria,  58.  21  Historic,  l.  171. 

^^Intr.  in  L.  S.,  167.  Luther's  Werkc,  XVI.  816,  No.  927.  Concordienlnich 
Einl.  in  A.  C.,  15. 

^'Breviarium,  63.         2i;y]ii;(>ei]ji,,ee,^^  ii    24.         '-^Kritisch.  Gesch.,  i.  30,  31. 

^^Aiigsb.  Confess.,  15.  -'Gesch.  d.  Augsb.  Confess.,  21. 

"sSymbolik,  I.  172,  175,  23.  '-''Luther's  Leben,  I.  233. 

^''Symbol.  Bucher.  Einl.,  LXI.  Cf.  Christian  Book  of  Concord.   Newmarket,  44. 

''Melanchthon  transl.  by  Dr.  Krotel,  95. 

'*K.  Geschichte,  ni.  1,247.     H-  T'..  Smith's  Translat.,  iv.  139. 

'^M.  Luther,  11.  208,  627,  n.  on  215.  ^*Lehrb.  d.  Symbolik,  113. 

'*In  Niedners  Zeitschrift,  572,  578.  *"  Augsb.  Confess..  19,  n.  2. 

*' Lib.  Symb.  Proleg.,  xvi.,  n.  10.  ^Confessio.  Fidei..  .\v. 

'^Luther's  Briefrechsel,  176.    ^'' Consilia,  Pezel,  90.  Epist.    Londini,  1642. 

*'  Corp.  Reform. ,11.  59,  No.  698.     Cf.  Schirrmacher,  473. 


2  8  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

daily  changed  some  things  in  it,  and  endeavored  more  cautiously 
and  accurately  to  arrange  and  polish  everything,  as  he  himself, 
some  days  after,  sending  a  copy  to  Luther  again  i^remiftens)  writes 
to  him  May  22.""  The  Judgment  of  Chytraeus  derives  special 
value  from  his  general  character  as  a  man  and  scholar,  and  the 
classic  character  of  his  History  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  which 
remains  to  this  hour  a  standard.  But  this  special  value  is  heightened 
by  the  fact  that  he  was  a  favorite  pupil  of  both  Luther  and  Me- 
lanchthon,  recommended  by  Brenz,  the  great  colaborer  in  the  Con- 
fession. Melanchthon,  after  his  first  interview  with  the  young 
Magister  of  fourteen,  said  :  "  You  are  of  right  a  Magister,  and  shall 
be  dear  to  me  as  a  son."  Chytraeus  lived  for  six  years  under  Me- 
lanchthon's  roof,  sharing  his  guidance,  confidence  and  love,  and 
doubtless  hearing  from  Melanchthon's  own  lips  the  particulars  con- 
nected with  the  great  Confession  at  Augsburg.''^  As  professor  of 
the  University  of  Rostoch  (1551,  nine  years  before  Melanchthon's 
death),  he  lectured  on  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  out  of  these 
lectures  grew  his  history,  finished  1576 — 1578.*" 

Coelestinus  :  "  Yet  (after  Luther's  approval  May  15)  Philip,  some 
clays  after,  sending  a  copy  to  Luther  again  (remittcns),  writes  May 

22d."^^ 

Calovius:  "Though  afterward  (after  May  11)  Melanchthon  made 
changes,  yet  this  was  not  done  without  Luther's  consent,  and  after 
some  days  a  copy  of  the  Confession  was  sent  again  to  Luther,  as  is 
evident  from  the  letter  of  May  22d."*''  Nearly  twenty  years  later 
Calovius  repeats  the  same  statement.^''  Maius  :  "  Not  without  Lu- 
ther's consent,  as  is  clear  from  Philip's  letter  of  May  2  2d  to  Lu- 
ther."** Frick:  "Melanchthon  daily  improved  the  Confession, 
and  sent  it  to  Luther  for  revision,  as  is  clear  from  his  letter  of  May 
22d."-"*  Loescher:  Nevertheless  (after  the  letters  of  May  11),  he 
still  made  improvements  here  and  there. as  he  then  sent  the  Doc- 
trinal Articles  a  second  time  (abermahls)  to  Luther,  May  2 2d,  for 
him  to  run  over."^"  Lomler :  "May  nth,  the  Confession  is  sent 
to  Luther  by  the  Elector.  May  2 2d,  Melanchthon  sends  the  Con- 
fession to   Luther  again  (nochmals)."^^     De  Wette  :     "May  22d, 

^^Lat.,  32.     French,  29.  « Pressel :  David  Chytraeus,  6.          "Do.,  18. 

^^Historia,  43.b.  ''« Critic.  Sacer.  23.                     "Exegema,  II.  3. 

**  Synopsis,  20.  ■'^  Ausfiihrl.  Ilistorie.,  1025. 

^Histor.  Motuum.,  160.  '''Luther's  Schriftcn,  in.  387. 


1530.]  MAY  16-22.  29 

Melanchthon  sends  the  Confession  to  Luther  again  (nochmals).''^'' 
Fikenscher  :  "Melanchthon  wrote  again  to  Luther,  May  22d,  in 
order  that  he  might  receive  any  remarks  which  it  might  please  him 
to  make."^^ 

John  George  Walch,  after  giving  the  correspondence  of  May 
11-15,  goes  on  to  say  :  "  After  Melanchthon  had  again  revised  the 
same,  and  made  changes  here  and  there  in  it,  he  wrote  once  more 
to  Luther,  May  22d,  and  desired  him,  that  if  he  had  anything  to 
suggest,  he  should  inform  him  of  it."^^ 

Marheincke  :  After  quoting  Luther's  reply  of  May  15  to  the 
Elector's  letter  of  May  11  : — "As,  however,  the  arrival  of  the  Em- 
peror was  delayed,  Melanchthon  daily  made  improvements  in  the 
Confession,  but  submitted  all  the  particular  changes  to  Luther,  who 
was  satisfied  with  them" — he  then  cites  in  proof  the  letter  of  May  2  2.'-^ 

Rudelbach:  "Melanchthon,  touching  the  articles  of  faith  re- 
peatedly appealed  to  Luther ;  "  and  then  gives  in  proof  the  letter 
of  May  22.^" 

Calinich  :  After  the  letters  of  May  11  :  "  But  as  the  Emperor 
does  not  yet  come,  Melanchthon  has  still  time  to  work  further  on 
the  Confession,  whose  outward  form  does  not  yet  satisfy  him,  as  on 
the  2 2d  of  May  he  writes  to  Luther  " — then  follow  the  words  bear- 
ing on  the  Confession;  the  important  ones  from  ''vellem  to  tracta- 
bimiis''  in  Italics.  "  It  follows  from  this  letter,"  says  Calinich,  "that 
Luther  must  have  had  a  copy  of  the  Confession  in  his  hands,  and 
consequently  indeed  must  have  received  a  new  one  from  Melanch- 
thon, if  he  had,  as  the  Electoral  letter  demanded,  immediately  sent 
back  by  the  same  messenger,  after  examining  it,  the  copy  which 
the  Elector  had  sent  him."^' 

Knaake  :^^  "  The  picture  (of  the  Siege  of  Vienna),  as  well  as 
the  letter  of  May  22,  reached  Luther."  He  gives  in  this  interesting 
essay,  what  we  shall  quote  at  its  place,  as  a  demonstration  that 
Luther  received  the  letter  of  May  22.^^* 

c.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  point  out  the  intrinsic  absurdity  of 

^^Briefe  IV.  11.  *'Gesch.  d.  Reiclfstags.  54. 

*♦  Ausfuhrliche    Nachricht,  Von  D.    M.    Luthero,  in    Sammtliche  Schriften, 
X.KUi.  490. 
»  Gcschichte,  11.  46C.  ^6  Einleitung,  95.  "  Luther,  11.  d.  A.  C,  43. 

5«  Lulher's  Antheil,  17,  46,  50,  51,  53,  54,  57,  58,  60,  61,  65,  74,  76. 
'9  Do.,  61-64.     See  Conservative  Reformation,  227-230. 


30  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

the  supposition  that  in  Melanchthon's  request  that  Luther  should 
"  run  over  the  articles  of  faith,"  he  refers  to  the  copy  of  May  1 1. 

1.  Melanchthon  certainly  knew  the  reasons  which  led  the  Elector 
to  request  Luther  to  send  back  at  once  the  copy  of  May  ii,  and 
most  probably  had  seen  and  approved  the  Elector's  letter. 

2.  The  copy  of  May  ii  had  actually  been  brought  back  to  Augs- 
burg before  he  wrote  the  letter  of  May  22.  At  the  beginning  of 
this  letter  he  refers  to  the  reception  of  Luther's  letter  to  him,  of 
May  15,  with  which  came  Luther's  letter  of  the  same  date  to  the 
Elector  approving  of  the  "Apology." 

3.  That  Melanchthon  should  think  it  necessary  to  ask  Luther,  in 
a  letter  which  could  not  reach  him  earlier  than  May  26,  to  run  over 
an  urgent  document  which  had  been  sent  him  May  1 1  (even  apart 
from  the  fact  that  it  was  to  be  returned  at  once)  is  preposterous. 

4.  The  Elector  and  Melanchthon  had  already,  May  11,  solicited 
Luther's  full  and  careful  judgment  on  the  Confession,  with  unlimited 
power  to  change  it,  in  any  respect.  How  weak  it  is  to  suppose 
that  eleven  days  after  Melanchthon  asks  him  to  "run  over''  the 
most  important  part  of  it. 

5 .  It  is  evident  that  verbal  changes  had  been  made  in  the  interval , 
giving  to  the  articles  of  faith  substantially  their  fixed  form.  The 
request  to  "run  over  the  articles "  implies  that  in  their  material 
aspects  they  had  already  been  carefully  examined,  and  that  the 
slight  changes  would  require  but  a  cursory  examination.  The 
whole  tone  implies  a  second  sending. 

d.  This  letter  establishes  the  fa'ct  that  "about  this  time  the  view 
becomes  fixed  that  the  other  Evangelical  States  luho  so  desired  might 
sign  the  Saxon  Confession."*^"  This  helped  to  prepare  the  way  for 
the  ultimate  determination  of  all  to  unite  in  it,  and  not  to  sign  it  as 
the  Saxon  Confession,  but  to  make  it  their  own.  The  progress  of 
the  movement  involves  these  stages  : 

1.  Saxony  purposes  to  present  alone  her  Confession,  and  the 
other  Estates  are  to  provide  for  themselves — up  to  May  22. 

2.  The  idea  is  started  that  some  others  may  concur  in  the  Con- 
fession prepared  by  Saxony,  and  still  presented  in  the  name  of  Sax- 
ony, about  May  22. 

3.  The  idea  grows  into  a  proposal  that  the  Confession  shall  be 
tested,  approved,  adopted  by  all  the  Estates,  and  presented  as  their 


Kollner,  176,  179,  27. 


1530.]  MAY    23    TO    JUNE    8.  31 

Confession,  with  possibly  some  provision  in  the   Introduction  for 
special  points,  desired  by  particular  Estates — June  8th. 

4.  It  ripens  into  the  absolute  unity  of  presentation  known  as  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  from  June  8th. 


VIII.    CHRONOLOGY   OF   THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION,   FROM 

THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  MOVEMENT  FOR  MAKING  IT  A 

COMMON  CONFESSION  OF  ALL  THE  LUTHERAN 

ESTATES,  TO  THE    COMPLETION    OF 

THAT  MOVEMENT  :    MAY 

23— JUNE  8. 

May  24 i.  George,  of  Anspach,  Margrave  of  Brandenburg, 

enters  Augsburg.  He  takes  an  active  interest  in  the  Confession. 
His  name  is  second  among  the  signers. 

ii.  Pontanus,  the  Saxon  Chancellor,  working  upon  the  preface 
and  epilogue  of  the  Confession. 

iii.  The  Niirnberg  Delegates  write:  "The  Saxon  Counsel  has 
come  back  from  Dr.  Luther,  but  Dr.  Bruck,  the  old  Chancellor, 
has  still  to  form  something  to  go  before  it  and  something  to  follow 
it  (the  Preface  and  Epilogue),  and  we  have  made  arrangements 
that  as  soon  as  he  is  ready  with  it  we  are  to  be  informed  of  the  fact. 
We  shall  therefore  make  another  application  for  it,  and  then  send 
it  to  you.  'This  Counsel  is  to  be  set  forth  in  German,  Latin  and 
French.  Our  delay  in  writing  has  been  caused  by  the  hope  from 
day  to  day  that  we  might  furnish  definite  information  as  to  the 
coming  of  His  Imperial  Majesty,  and  might  also  at  the  same  time 
send  the  Saxon  Counsel.  But  no  one  knows  when  his  Majesty  will 
be  here.'" 

iv.  The  Emperor  demands  through  the  Counts  of  Nassau  and 
Nuenar,  that  the  Elector  of  Saxony  shall  bring  the  Evangelical 
preaching  at  Augsburg  to  an  end.^ 

May  26 — i.  About  this  time  Melanchthon  prepares  a  "  Forma 

^Corp.  Ref.,  H.  700.  Strobel  :  Misccllan.,  II.  25.  FiUcnscher,  54.  Koll- 
ner,  175,  24. 

^  Coelestinus,  I.  50.  Chytr.ieus,  37.  Miiller,  502-506.  Luther's  Weike  : 
VValch,  XVI.,  824-S28,  No.  930. 


32  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

Apologios,"  a  short  paper  probably  for  preliminary  use,  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  Diet.^ 

ii.  Melanchthon's  paper  on  the  Gravamina,  or  burdens  imposed 
on  the  conscience  of  the  Elector,  by  the  Emperor.* 

iii.  The  Letter  of  the  Niirnberg  Legates  to  the  Senate.^ 

iv.  Melanchthon  writes  to  Goldstein:  "I  have  been  sufficiently 
occupied  in  preparing  an  Apology,  or  rather  an  Exomologesis  (full 
confession).  We  have  been  waiting  here  almost  a  whole  month 
expecting  the  Autocrat,  for  he  is  not  yet  here.""  "We  do  not  yet 
know  certainly,  whether  he  has  determined  to  take  into  cognizance 
the  religious  controversies." 

May  28. — i.  The  Saxon  Theologians  and  Counsellors  are  occu- 
pied in  examining  the  Confession. 

The  Niirnberg  Legates  write  :  "The  Chancellor  of  the  Elector 
of  Saxony  told  us  that  the  Counsellors  (Rathe)  and  the  learned  men 
(Gelehrte)  were  holding  daily  sittings  on  their  Counsel  (Rathschlag) 
in  matters  of  faith,  to  make  changes  in  it,  and  improve  it,  to  the 
intent  that  they  might  put  it  and  present  it  in  such  form,  that  it 
could  not  well  be  passed  by ;  so  that  a  hearing  of  the  matter  must 
be  accorded,  when  they  shall  be  ready  with  the  Counsel.  We  shall 
apply  again  that  we  may  send  it  to  you."' 

The  document,  it  is  seen  from  this,  is  submitted  to  the  examina- 
tion of  the  Counsellors  and  Theologians  of  Saxony,  who  had  had  no 
voice  in  the  matter  until  after  May  22,  and  even  now  it  is  Saxony 
alone. 

ii.  About  this  date  the  judgment  is  prepared  by  the  Theologians, 
in  regard  to  the  demand  of  the  Emperor  (May  24)  that  the  evan- 
gelical ministers  should  be  forbidden  to  preach  at  Augsburg.  This 
judgment  is  offered  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony  alone — and  to  him 
alone  had   been    addressed  the  mandate  of  the  Emperor.'' 

There  is  an  opinion  of  the  Saxon  Chancellor  Pontanus  (Briick), 
on  the  same  subject,  in  which  he  refers  to  the  mandate  of  the 
Emperor  in  its  more  general  form,  as  addressed  to  "the  Electors, 

•''Corp.  Reformat.,  ll.  701.  *Do.,  702. 

^Corp.  Reformat.,  n.  703.  •"'Do.,  704. 

^  Corp.  Reformator.,  Ii.  705.     Strol)el :  Miscell.,  11.  26. 

^Coelestinus  i.  33-35.  Melanchthonis  Coiisilia  (Lat.)  ed.  Pczelius  I. 
103-107.  Miiller,  483-486.  Lullier's  Werke :  Walch,  xvi.  798-802.  No'. 
918,  II.     Cf.  Seckendorf,  Lib.  11.  153.     Salig.,  i.  163. 


1530.]  MAY    23_JUNE    8.  J3 

Princes,  and  Estates."  The  Emperor,  to  give  a  show  of  impartiality, 
made  the  prohibition  nominally  refer  to  both  parties,  although  the 
Protestants  were  almost  exclusively  affected  by  it." 

Before  May  31. — Of  the  Latin  Manuscripts  of  the  Confession 
it  is  supposed  that  two  are  older  than  May  31. 

These  are : 

1.  The  Dessau  Codex.  It  is  preserved  in  the  Archives  of  the 
Duchy  of  Anhalt.  It  has  not  the  title,  preface  and  epilogue.  See 
May  31.     It  was  brought  from  the  Diet  by  Prince  Wolfgang."* 

2.  Hessian  Codex  I.  It  is  preserved  in  the  Archives  at  Cassel. 
It  was  taken  home  by  Philip  of  Hesse  on  his  return  from  Augsburg. 
It  embraces  only  the  x\rticles  of  Faith,  and  these  "  in  their  early,  or 
indeed  their  earliest  form.'"' 

May  31. — i.  The  Confession  in  German  is  not  yet  finished.  A 
copy  of  the  Confession  in  Latin  is  given  to  the  Niirnberg  Legates. 
It  wants  the  preface  and  epilogue,  and  the  article  on  Faith  and 
Works. 

The  Niirnberg  Legates  write:  "The  Saxon  Counsel  (Rath- 
schlag)  is  not  yet  ready  (in  German)."  "  But  the  same  articles,  as 
they  have  been  handled  up  to  this  time  in  Latin,  have  been  handed 
to  us,  which,  with  the  exception  of  the  preface  and  conclusion, 
about  which  there  is  j^et  the  most  doubt,  we  will  have  transcribed 
and  sent  to  you.  As  soon,  after  which,  as  they  are  ready  with  the 
German,  which  they  are  daily  improving,  we  shall  solicit  a  copy  of 
that  for  you.'"-  The  preface  and  conclusion  in  the  Latin  are  evi- 
dently written,  but  it  is  yet  an  open  question  whether  they  are  to 
be  in  the  name  of  Saxony  alone. 

The  doubt  about  the  preface  and  conclusion,  which  Pontanus 
prepared,  is  evidently  as  to  whose  name  they  shall  be  made  out  in 
— that  of  Saxony  or  of  the  whole  body  of  Protestant  Princes  and 
Estates. 

ii.  The  Elector  of  Saxony  replies  to  the  Emperor's  mandate  of 
May  24,  declining  to  yield  to  it.''' 

'Corp.  Reformat.,  II.,  No.  707.  Miiller,  489.  Luther's  VVerke  :  Walch, 
XVI.  804-807,  No.  921. 

10  Weber,  i.  87  sq.     Francke :  L.  S.  xxi.  4. 
"  Forstemann,  l.  372,  442.      Francke  :   L.  S.,  xxi.  5. 
"Corp.  Reformat.,  11.  708. 

"Coelestimis,  I.  5oh-53h.     Cliytraeus:   Germ.,  32-3S.    Lnt.,  37-42.     Miiller, 
3 


34  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

iii.  On  this  day  we  have  the  first  aUusion  to  any  persons  outside 
of  the  Saxon  circle  having  a  copy  of  the  Confession  put  into  their 
hands. 

The  proposition  that  the  Confession  should  be  presented  in  the 
name  of  the  Estates  was  opposed  by  Melanchthon,  who  thought  it 
should  be  offered  in  the  name  of  the  theologians,  leaving  the  Princes 
unembarrassed.'* 

Between  May  31  and  June  16.  —  The  Latin  Codices  of 
this  period  are : 

1.  The  Fabrician.^^ 

2.  The  Wiirzburg  Codex  (Wirceburg)  in  the  royal  archives 
of  Bavaria." 

3.  The  Ratisbon  Codex — Among  the  Acta  of  the  Ratisbon 
Diocese.'' 

4.  The  Hessian  Codex  11.  in  the  Archives  at  Cassel.'^ 

5.  The  Anspach  Codex  formerly  in  the  Archives  of  George, 
Margrave  of  Brandenburg,  now  in  the  Royal  Archives  at  Niirn- 
berg.'' 

June  I. — i.  About  this  date  Melanchthon's  Judgment  on  the  Six 
Questions,  entirely  in  the  name  of  the  Elector:  i.  Of  the  Eating 
of  Flesh.  2.  The  taking  up  of  Questions  of  Faith  at  the  Diet.  3. 
The  Calling  of  a  Council.  4.  Of  Spiritual  Jurisdiction.  5.  The 
old  Constitutions  and  Canons.     6.  The  Cloisters.^" 

ii.  The  Elector  of  Saxony  writes  to  Luther,  thanks  him  for  his 
letter  of  "Christian  Exhortation  and  Comfort"  (May  20),  gives 
him  certain  information,  to  be  kept  secret,  in  regard  to  a  commu- 

506-517.  Luther's  Werke :  Walch,  XVI.  828-839,  No.  931.  Forstemann. 
Urkndbch.  I.  224.     Cf.  Briick's  Geschichte,  25. 

"Camerarius  de  Vita  Mel.,  120.     Matthes  :     Phil.  Mel.,  1 13. 

i^IIarm.  Conf.  Aug.,  1573.  Coelestiiuis,  li.  169-188.  Weber,  I.  70-100. 
II.  Praef.    Francke,  L.  S.  xxi.  6. 

^*  Forstemann,  I.  446.     Francke,  X.\I.  7. 

"Forstemann,  i.  446  sqtj.,  468  sqq. 

18 Forstemann,  i.  444.     Francke:    L.  S.,  xxii.  9. 

19 Weber,  l.  81.  sq.     Forstemann,  I.  442,  sq.     Francke:    L.  S.  xxil.  10. 

*°Corp.  Reformat.,  709.  Miiller,  498  in  part.  Luther's  Werke:  Walch.,  xvi. 
807,  No.  922,  in  part.     Cf.  Seckendorf,  11.  153. 


1530.]  MAY    23 JUNE    8.  35 

nication   in  which   the   Emperor  makes  charges  against  the  Elec- 
tor.'^' 

iii.  Luther  writes  to  Jacob  Probst,  Licentiate  of  theology,  min- 
ister in  Bremen.^'^  This  letter  abounds  with  unmistakable  refer- 
ences to  Melanchthon's  letter  of  May  22.  It  repeats  the  items 
of  news  given  by  Melanchthon,  in  the  same  order,  in  the  very 
words,  in  a  number  of  cases  ;  with  a  transfer  of  marked  peculiarities 
of  words  and  style.  Luther  himself  says  expressly,-^  that  he  had 
received  no  letters  from  his  personal  friends  in  Wittenberg,  written 
between  May  22  and  June  i. 

June  2. — .i.  Cochleus  solicits  a  secret  interview  with  Melanch- 
thon.'* 

ii.  Luther  writes  to  Melanchthon  :  "  Yesterday  Hans  Reyneck, 
of  Mansfeld,  and  George  Romer  were  with  us,  and  Arguia  von 
Stauffer  is  here  to-day."  He  expresses  his  determination  to  break 
up  the  coming  to  Coburg,  and  adds:  "Therefore,  do  you  also, 
and  yours,  so  speak  and  write  in  future  in  consonance  with  this  wish, 
that  they  shall  no  longer  seek  me  here.  For  I  wish  to  be  care- 
fully concealed,  and  in  future,  in  consonance  with  this,  do  you  also 
keep  me  carefully  concealed,  both  in  what  you  say,  and  in  your  let- 
ters." Luther's  desire  to  be  concealed  was  not  from  aversion  to 
visits  in  general,  or  to  these  visitors.  But  secrecy  was  essential  to 
freedom  of  communication  with  him,  the  safety  of  what  was  sent  to 
him,  and  his  personal  safety. 

iii.  In  the  same  letter:  "Here  they  are  beginning  to  argue 
with  us,  that  your  Diet  will  amount  to  nothing,  and  that  the  Em- 
peror will  be  drawn  away  by  the  guile  and  arts  of  such  a  number  of 
bishops,  till  everybody  being  worn  out,  you  will  be  compelled  to 
return  home.  There  is  no  hope  that  the  Elector  of  Treves  and  the 
Palsgrave  will  be  present,  and  the  Emperor,  trained  in  the  art  of 
the  Papists,  will  discover  reasons  for  not  coming  to  Augsburg."'-* 
I..uther,  without  adopting  these  rumors  as  reliable,  confesses  that  he 

"  Coelestinus,  l.  53.  Chytraeus,  Lat.  37.  Fr.,  35.  Ger.,  35!).  Luther's 
Werke:    Leipz.,  xx.  175.    Walch,  xvi.  839,  No.  932. 

'^^ Coelestinus,  I.  54.  Buddeus,  103,  No.  123.  German,  Leipz.,  Xix.  531  (in 
part).     Walch,  xvi.  2823.     Dc  VVelte,  IV.  27. 

^^  Letters  of  June  19  and  20.  2*  Corji.  Ref.,  11.  710. 

'5  Coelestinus,  1.60  b.  Buddeus,  106.  Walch,  xvr.  2826.  De  Wetle,  iv. 
30,  No  1 219. 


Z^  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

was  greatly  agitated  by  them.  The  Elector  of  Treves,  Greiffenclau 
von  Vollrath,  on  account  of  his  great  age,  did  not  appear  at  Augs- 
burg ;  nor  did  the  Palsgrave,  the  Count  Palatine,  Louis  the  Peace- 
ful. Both  were  represented,  however,  by  legates.  P)Oth  had  shown 
a  spirit  of  justice  and  gentleness  toward  the  Reformation,  and 
hence  the  sadness  of  Luther  at  the  abandonment  of  the  hopes  of 
their  appearing.     Both  died  the  year  following.-*' 

June  3. — I.  Melanchthon  urges  Lachmann  not  to  favor  the 
Zwinglian  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

2.  The  Niirnberg  Legates  send  a  Latin  copy  of  the  Confession 
to  the  Senate  of  Niirnberg:  "Herewith  we  send  you  a  copy  of 
the  Saxon  Counsel  in  Latin,  and  the  Preface  or  Introduction  is  with 
it.  But  there  is  wanting  at  the  end  an  article  or  two,  together  with 
the  Conclusion,  on  which  the  Saxon  theologians  are  still  at  work. 
As  soon  as  it  is  ready  it  shall  be  sent  to  you.  In  the  meantime  your 
excellencies  may  have  your  theologians  and  preachers  to  examine 
this  and  give  their  counsel  upon  it.  As  soon  as  the  Confession  is 
put  into  German,  it  shall  not  be  kept  back  from  you.  In  any  case 
it  is  the  desire  of  the  Saxons  that  you  should  keep  this  Counsel  or 
Draft  secret,  and  allow  no  one  to  have  a,  copy,  until  it  has  been  sub- 
mitted to  His  Imperial  Majesty.  They  have  their  reasons  for  this. 
Therefore,  your  excellencies  will,  on  this  account,  observe  precau- 
tion in  the  case  of  those  who  are  allowed  to  get  it,  and  see  to  it  that 
a  Latin  copy  is  sent  back  to  us.  If  your  excellencies'  preachers  and 
theologians  determine  to  make  any  changes  or  improvements  in  this 
Counsel,  or  the  one  previously  sent,  you  will  please  also  send  them 
to  us."  '' 

June  4. — (About  this  date)  Brentius  writes  to  Isenmann  :  "  It 
is  thought  the  Emperor  will  not  reach  us  before  Corpus  Christi. 
Cochleus  wrote  recently  to  Philip  (see  June  2)  that  he  wished  to 
have  a  conversation  with  him,  but  there  were  to  be  no  married 
priests  present.  Philip  took  me,  therefore,  as  I  am  not  yet  mar- 
ried. See  what  blessedness  my  celibacy  brings  me — that  I  have 
the  privilege  of  talking  with  Cochleus.     We  have   so  softened  him 

2*Rotermund:    Geschichte,  228-230. 

"Corp.  Ref.  Ii.  No.  712,  Strobel;  Miscellan.,  il.  27.  See  Kollner,  171, 
174,  15- 


1530.]  MAY    23— JUNE   8.  37 

that  he  now  salutes  married  priests,  and  treats  them  just  as  cour- 
teously as  he  treats  others."^* 

June  5. — i.  The  Elector  of  Saxony  expresses  to  Kress,  the 
Niirnberg  Legate,  his  grief  at  the  Emperor's  course  in  repressing 
the  preaching,  and  tells  him  that  he  had  been  thinking  of  leaving 
Augsburg.^* 

ii.  Luther  writes  to  Link:  "lam  sorry  to  hear  that  there  are 
doubts  about  the  Diet.  .  .  .We  shall  change  our  location  to-morrow, 
on  account  of  the  frequency  of  visitors.  The  pilgrimage  is  becom- 
ing too  great  to  this  point.  It  would  offend  the  Prince"  (the 
Elector).-'" 

iii.  Luther  writes  to  the  Abbot,  Frederick,  at  Niirnberg.^' 

iv.  Luther  writes  to  Melanchthon :  reproaches  him  that  he  had 
allowed  two  messengers  to  return  from  Augsburg  without  letters 
from  himself  or  the  others — "as  there  are  so  many  of  you,  and 
nearly  all  ready  writers.  From  Niirnberg  we  received  intelli- 
gence which  would  argue  that  the  Emperor  is  not  coming  to  the 
Diet  at  all,  and  that  the  whole  thing  will  prove  a  failure."-" 

June  7. — Luther  writes  to  Melanchthon,  complaining  of  the 
silence  of  his  friends  in  Augsburg,  but  in  an  entirely  playful 
manner.  ^^ 

June  8. — I.  Prologue  (preface)  and  Epilogue  of  the  Confession 
not  yet  finished. 

2.  Up  to  this  time  the  Confession  had  been  written  solely  in  the 
name  of  the  Duke  of  Saxony  the  Elector  John. 

3.  The  Protestant  Princes  and  cities,  move  to  enter  into  an 
arrangement  with  the  Elector,  to  have  the  Confession  exhibited 
in  the  names  of  all.  The  Niirnberg  Legates  write  :  "  The 
Saxon  Declaration  of  Faith,  which  we  recently  sent  you,  we 
presume  you  have  already  given  to  your  preachers  and  to  your  jur- 
ists for  their  deliberations.  And  we  should  have  liked  to  send  to 
you  the  Supplement  and  Conclusion  of  the  Declaration,  but  the 
Saxons  are,  up  to  this  time,  not  yet  ready  therewith.  We  shall, 
however,  make  another  application  therefor.  And  since  it  is  your 
opinion,  contained  in  our  instruction,  that  we,  in  your  behalf,  shall 

"  Corp.  Reformat.,  II.  No.  713.  -9  Corp.  Ref.,  11.  No.  714. 

»»  Hriefe:   De  Wette,  IV.  30.   No.  1220.  »•   De  Wctte  iv.  34,  No.  1222. 

3-^Briefe:  De  WeUe,  iv.  32.,  No.  1221.  "De  WcUe,  iv.  35,  No.   1223. 


:iS  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

Stand  with  the  Elector,  and  with  the  Margrave  George  (of  Bran- 
denburg), and  that  the  action  of  their  Electoral  and  Princely  Graces 
and  your  own,  shall  in  this  case  be  one  and  the  same,  and  yet  as 
the  Saxon  statement  (Verzeichniss)  is  presented  in  the  form  of  a  pe- 
tition, in  the  name  of  the  Elector  alone,  we  are  of  opinion  that  it 
will  be  necessary  to  consider  whether  in  connection  with  the  Saxon 
statement,  your  Excellencies  should  set  forth  a  separate  statement 
to  be  submitted  to  His  Imperial  Majesty  by  itself,  in  your  name,  or 
whether,  on  the  other  hand,  the  question  should  be  raised  before 
the  Elector  in  regard  to  presenting  the  statement  of  His  Electoral 
Grace,  not  in  the  name  of  His  Grace  alone,  but  in  common,  in  the 
name  of  the  Margrave  George  (of  Brandenburg),  and  also  of  your  Ex- 
cellencies, and  of  the  other  Estates  and  Cities  involved  in  this  matter. 
We  shall  await  your  instructions  as  to  the  position  we  are  to  take, 
and  as  to  our  holding  a  previous  consultation  with  Margrave  George. 
I,  Kress,  have  however  already  spoken  with  the  Chancellor  of  the 
Margrave  about  it,  and  he  says  that  the  Preachers  and  Jurists  of 
his  Master  are  already  in  consultation  on  the  subject,  and  that  his 
Master  finds  the  same  fault  that  we  find,  that  is,  that  the  Saxon 
Statement  is  set  forth  in  the  name  of  the  Elector  alone,  and  that 
the  Margrave  is  also  in  favor  of  presenting  it  in  common  in  the 
name  of  all  the  Princes  and  cities  which  are  agreed  in  the  Articles  of 
Faith  and  adhere  to  His  Grace  and  the  Elector.  Such  an  arrange- 
ment could  probably  be  readily  brought  about,  and  yet,  in  the  In- 
troduction, there  could  be  separately  specified  and  noted  what  had 
been  presented  to  His  Majesty  and  the  Empire  on  account  of  each 
particular  Prince  and  Estate,  which  was  of  such  a  nature  that  it 
could  not  be  embraced  in  the  statement  made  in  common.  May  it, 
therefore,  please  your  Excellencies  to  consider,  in  connection  with 
other  matters,  what  shall  be  presented,  in  the  Introduction,  on  your 
account,  and  with  the  help  of  your  Jurists,  to  permit  the  same  to  be 
put  into  formal  shape.'"** 


**Corp.  Reformat.,  II.  No.  715.     Fikenscher,  56.     KoIIner,  176,  179,34. 


1530.]  JUNE  9-25.  39 

IX.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION,  FROM  THE 
COMPLETE   PROPOSAL  THAT   IT   SHOULD   BE   A 
COMMON   CONFESSION   TO    ITS   DELIV- 
ERY: JUNE  9— JUNE   25,  1530. 

June  II. — The  Landgrave  of  Hesse  attempts  to  induce  Me- 
lanchthon  and  Brentius  to  favor  the  admission  of  the  Zwinglians  into 
fellowship  with  the  Lutherans.  Melanchtlion  and  Brentius  unite  in 
a  letter  to  the  Landgrave,  strongly  urging  the  impossibility  of  such 
a  fellowship.  The  Landgrave  replies.  Melanchthon  and  Brentius 
answer  him.' 

June  13. — I.  Melanchthon  writes  to  Luther  to  urge  the  Land- 
grave to  avoid  the  Zwinglians,  whom  he  charges  with  a  seditious 
spirit:  "The  expectation  of  your  letter  to  the  Landgrave  so  tor- 
tured me  that  I  was  able  to  write  nothing  in  the  interim.  For  I 
have  asked  you  to  write  to  him  not  to  precipitate  himself  into  the 
impious  cause  of  the  Quibblers  (the  Zwinglians).  For  he  is  wrang- 
ling in  a  wonderful  way  with  everybody,  about  that  matter.  Henry 
of  Brunswick  complained  to  me,  to-day,  grievously  of  the  disputes 
of  the  Landgrave  about  that  matter,  and  begs  that  in  every  way  we 
exert  ourselves  that  he  be  not  torn  from  us.  The  Zwinglians  are 
laying  wonderful  snares  for  him.  I  am  almost  consumed  with  the 
most  wretched  cares. "' 

2.  Melanchthon  writes  to  Vitus  Theodorus  :  "  I  implore  you  that 
you  urge  the  Doctor  to  write  to  the  Landgrave.  He  perhaps  im- 
agines, that  he  can  accomplish  little  by  so  doing  ;  but  as  the  mattt" 
still  stands,  we  are  in  some  hope  that  his  letter  will  not  prove  use- 
less. Our  cause  would  be  less  odious,  if  the  Zwinglians  did  not 
prejudice  it,  who  to  their  seditious  counsels  against  the  Emperor 
add  also  intolerable  dogmas.'" 

These  letters  show  that  Melanchthon  had  no  knowledge  of  any 
letter  written  up  to  this  date  by  Luther  to  the  Landgrave ;  that  he 
assumes  that  Luther  could  not  have  written  without  his  knowledge. 
The  latest  investigations  clear  up  this  matter,  and  show  that  Luther 
had  not  written,  as  is  generally  stated.  May  20,  but  that  the  true 
date  of  his  letter  to  the  Landgrave  is  June  20.     See  that  date. 

'Chytraeus:  Germ.  (1580),  358-360.  Lat.,  648-651.  French,  467-470 
Grundl.  Historia,  112-114.  Lat.,  138-141.  Coelestinus,  i.  60-63.  Luther's 
Werke:  Walch,  xvii.  2383-2386,  No.  37. 

*Corp.  Rcf.,  IV.  1008,  No.  721  .i.  '  Do.,  11.  103,  No.  721. 


40  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

June  14. — The  Niirnberg  Legates  receive  a  copy  of  the  German 
Confession,  but  without  the  Prologue  and  Epilogue,  as  it  is  hoped 
that  the  Confession  will  be  presented  to  the  Emperor  in  the  name 
of  all  the  Protestants  In  this  German  copy  Melanchthon,  in  antici- 
pation of  a  decision  gladly  already  virtually  made  by  Saxony,  has, 
for  the  terms  in  the  articles  implying  that  the  Confession  is  for  Sax- 
ony only,  substituted  common  terms  adapted  to  the  concurrence  of 
all  the  Estates.*  Matthes  connects  with  this  date  Melanchthon's 
words  of  1560.'^ 

June  15. — i.  The  Emperor  enters  Augsburg.'' 

ii.  The  Niirnberg  Legates  send  the  Confessson  in  German  to 
Niirnberg.  They  write:  "The  Saxon  summary  (Begriff)  in 
the  matter,  is  ready  in  the  German,  and  we  send  it  herewith  to  you. 
But  the  Preface  and  Conclusion  are  not  with  it,  and,  as  Philip  Mel- 
anchthon has  stated,  he  has  not  rendered  any  part  of  those  into 
German,  because  he  anticipates  that  this  very  same  Preface  and 
Conclusion  may  be  presented  not  only  in  the  name  of  the  Elector, 
but  in  common  in  the  names  of  all  the  United  Lutheran  Princes 
and  Estates;  as  for  this  same  reason,  as  you  will  notice,  he  has 
already  made  changes  in  the  articles  in  German — that  is,  where 
in  the  Latin  it  is  said  '  that  in  the  Electorate  of  Saxony  this  or  that 
has  been  preached  and  held,'  he  omits  in  the  German  the  words 
'  Electorate  of  Saxony,'  and  puts  in  their  place  some  common  term 
which  may  apply  to  all  the  Estates.  This  Summary  you  will  please 
submit  to  your  preachers  and  jurists,  and  send  us  their  opinion  and 
advice  upon  it.  .  .  .  The  Articles  on  Faith  and  Works,  which  is 
placed  at  the  end  of  the  German  Summary,  is  not  in  the  Latin 
Summary  which  we  sent  you.  .  .  .  We  are  not  able  to  send  it  to 
you  in  Latin,  as  it  is  not  yet  made  out,  but  expect  that  it  will  be 
ready  in  about  two  days.'" 

*Corp.  Ref.,  11.  723.     Fikenscber,  54,55.      Kollner,  177,  179,36. 

^  Phil.  Mel.,  113,11.  c. 

"  Die  Alte  und  Erste  Relation  von  Reichstag  zu  Augsburg,  in  Cyprian.  Bey- 
lagen.  Num.,  vi.  60-84  Walch,  xvi.  841,  No.  935.  See  Coelestin.,  r.  68. 
Seckenclorf,  11.  161.  Miiller:  Ilistorie,  522.  Salig.,  i.  178.  Another  descrip- 
tion, Luther's  Werke:  Jena,  V.  33.  Altb.,  25.  Leipzig,  .XX.  201.  Walch,  XVl. 
870,  No.- 937.     Chytraeus  :   derm.,  83.     Lat.,  43. 

^  Corp.  Ref.,  11.  No.  723.     Fikenscher,  54.     Kollner,  180,  37. 


1530.]  JUNE  9-25.  41 

June  16. —  I.  The  Niirnbergers  write:  "His  Majesty  had  a 
private  interview  with  the  four  Princes,  to  wit :  the  Elector  of 
Saxony,  Margrave  George,  the  Duke  of  Luneburg,  and  the  Land- 
grave of  Hesse."* 

2.  A  writing  of  the  Evangelical  Princes  to  the  Emperor,  in  regard 
to  the  silencing  of  their  preachers,  signed  only  by  the  five  Princes. 
The  names  of  John  Frederick  and  Francis  are  not  attached  to  it. " 

3.  The  opinion  (Bedenken)  of  the  Saxon  theologians  discusses 
the  question:  "Whether  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  others  ('the 
Protestant  Princes')  can  take  part  without  violation  of  conscience 
in  the  procession  on  Corpus  Christi  Day.'"" 

4.  In  consequence  of  the  sickness  of  the  Elector,  the  result  of  his 
late  detention  by  the  Emperor,  the  night  before,  his  son,  John 
Frederic,  by  the  will  and  command  of  his  father,  takes  his  place. 
He  and  George  of  Brandenburg,  Ernest,  Duke  of  Luneburg,  Philip, 
Landgrave  of  Hesse,  and  Wolfgang,  appear  before  the  Emperor. 
George  of  Brandenburg  states  that  they  could  not  be  present  in 
the  procession  of  Corpus  Christi,  nor  interdict  the  preaching  of 
their  theologians." 

June  19. — I.  The  NLirnberg  Legates  write:  "But  the  conclu- 
sion which  belongs  to  this  document  is  not  yet  made  out.  For  it 
may  be,  as  Philip  Melanchthon  has  expressed  his  opinion  that  it  may, 
that  the  matter  may  not  come  to  so  expanded  a  treatment,  but  be 
contracted  still  more,  and  brought  into  a  narrower  compass  and 
treatment.  Whichever  may  turn  out  to  be  the  case,  whether  the 
former  one  be  completed,  or  a  new  concept  made,  we  will  inform 
you  of  it.'"- 

2.  Brentius  writes  to  Isenmann  :  "The  Emperor  summoned  to 
him  our  three  Princes,  whom  they  call  evangelical — the  Prince 
Elector  of  Saxony,  the  Margrave  George  (of  Brandenburg),  and  the 
Landgrave  of  Hesse — these  alone,  he  called  to  himself  alone,  no 
one  being  present  with  him  but  Ferdinand,  who  also  acted  as 
interpreter.'"'' 


*  Corp.  Reform.,  11.  106,  No.  724.     Strobel:  Miscellan.,  II.  28. 

'Chytraeus,  41-44.  Miiller,  538-545.  Walch,  xvi.  881,  seq.  In  Latin, 
Chytraeus,  46-49.  Coelestinus,  1.86-89.   Foistemann,  No.  98. 

'"  Corp.  Ref.,  II.  no,  No.  726.  Miiller,  525.  Lutlier'.s  Weike;  Walch,  xvi. 
808,  No.  923.    Coelestinus,  i.  66,  67.    See  Seckendorf,  11.  162. 

"  Corp.  Ref.,  n.  in,  No.  726.     Coelestinus,  r.  81  b. 

"  Corp.  Ref.,  11.  112,  No.  728.  "  Corp.  Ref.,  Ii.  114,  No.  729. 


42  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

June  20. — i.  Opening  of  the  Diet,  Monday." 

ii.  The  Propositions  of  the  Emperor  are  read  before  the  Princes 
and  Orders  of  the  Empire.  They  treat  in  part  of  the  mode  of  re- 
storing harmony  in  reHgion.^^ 

iii.  The  Elector  of  Saxony  takes  counsel  in  the  evening  with  his 
associates  in  the  faith.'*' 

iv.  Luther  says  in  a  letter  to  Erhard  Schnepf,  Chaplain  of  Philip 
of  Hesse :  "I  have  written  to  the  same,  your  Prince,  a  letter, 
which  you  see  before  you,  and  if  it  be  convenient  will  yourself  de- 
liver [to  him],  and  if  there  is  need,  say  something  to  prepare  the 
way  for  it."''  This  letter  seems  to  settle  it  absolutely  that  the  letter 
of  Luther  to  the  Landgrave,  usually  dated  May  20,  ought  to  be 
dated  June  20,  and  thus  clears  up  a  multitude  of  otherwise  insuper- 
able difficukies.  See  May  20,  Luther's  letter ;  June  13,  Melanch- 
thon's  letters  to  Luther,  and  Veit  Dietrich. 

V.  Luther  writes  to  Justus  Jonas,  at  Augsburg  :'® 

a.  "Your  letter  has  come  at  last,  after  you  had  tormented  us 
sufficiently  by  constant  silence  for  three  whole  weeks,  although  I 
twice  wrote  to  Philip  that  you  should  not  be  thus  silent." 

This  letter  is  very  important  in  its  bearing  on  some  of  the  confused 
questions  in  the  chronology  of  the  Confession.  First  it  marks  the 
length  of  time  of  the  break  in  Luther's  personal  correspondence 
with  his  friends  in  Augsburg,  He  received  the  letter  of  Jonas 
June  19:  "Three  whole  weeks"  would  carry  back  the  receipt  of 
the  last  letters  to  about  May  29.  To  have  received  them  May  29, 
by  ordinary  carriage,  they  could  not  have  been  sent  from 
Augsburg  later  than  about  May  25.  Taking  May  25  as  the  point 
of  regressive  beginning,  and  going  back  from  it  till  we  reach  letters 
written  to  Luther,  we  find  that  Melanchthon's  letters  of  May  22 
to  Luther,  and  Veit  Dietrich  (see  that  date)  and  the  letters 
of  Urban  Rhegius  to  Luther  May  21,  alone   fulfill  the  conditions. 

"  Coelestinus,  i.  102  b.  Mullen  Histor.,  559;   Kollner,  197. 

^^Coelestinus,  I.  116.  Chytraeus,  Germ.,  47.  See  Miiller,  564  seq.  Forste- 
mann,  Urkndhch.,  i.  295.     Kollner,  198. 

'^Coelestinus,  121  b.     Kollner,  198. 

"Luther's  Biiefe:  Dc  Wette,  IV.  44,  No.  1231. 

'^Coelestinus,  I.  136  b.  Chytraeus,  141.  Buddeus,  108.  De  Wette  iv.  45, 
No.  1232.  Germ.:  Chytraeus,  120  (229),  Cyprian's  Beylagen;  176:  Walch, 
XVI.  976.  Frencli :  Chytraeus,  (Le  Cop.),  132.  See  Seckendorf,  11.  181. 
Frick,  1089. 


1530.]  JUNE  9-25.  43 

Back  of  that,  the  first  letters  to  Luther  on  record,  are  those  of  the 
Elector  and  Melanchthon,  May  11  (see  that  date).  This  is 
strongly  confirmatory  of  the  fact,  which  is  apart  from  this,  how- 
ever, beyond  all  dispute  that  Luther  received  Melanchthon's  letters 
of  May  22  without  any  serious  delay. 

Between  May  22  and  June  i^,  when  Melanchthon  again  wrote, 
are  precisely  three  weeks. 

b.  It  is  now  a  question  of  great  interest  whether  we  possess  the 
letter  of  Jonas,  to  which  this  of  June  20  is  an  answer.  And  to  this 
the  reply,  on  anything  short  of  a  thorough  examination,  would  be 
that  there  is  a  letter  of  Jonas,  to  which  this  is  manifestly  an  answer. 
There  is  a  letter  of  Jonas  bearing  apparently  irresistible  internal 
evidence  that  there  is  some  relation  between  it  and  Luther's  of 
June  20,  and  that  the  relation  is  that  Luther's  is  the  reply  to  it.'" 

c.  The  Corpus  Reformatorum'-"  gives  another  letter  of  Jonas,  as 
the  one  to  which  Luther's  with  the  date  June  20  is  the  reply, ^*  and 
says  that  this  letter  of  Jonas  was  written  about  June  29,  and  that 
there  must  be  an  error  in  the  date  of  Luther's,  and  proposes  June 
30  as  the  correct  date.  It  says  Luther's  response  to  ^/iis  letter  is 
given  in  Walch.,"  but  Walch  gives  another  letter  of  Jonas'  cited 
under  b,  as  the  one  to  which  Luther  replies,  and  this  is  beyond  doubt 
so  far  right  that  the  related  letters  are  those  which  Walch  gives  to- 
gether. 

d.  There  is  an  insuperable  barrier  if  the  dates  stand,  to  the  theory 
that  Luther's  letter  of  June  20,  is  in  reply  to  any  letter  of  Jonas 
which  we  now  have.  The  later  letter  of  Jonas  was  written  after 
June  25,  and  not  earlier  than  June  29  ;  the  earlier  letter  of  Jonas 
was  written  on  June  25,  in  the  morning  of  the  day,  on  the  afternoon 
of  which  the  Confession  was  delivered.  If  the  date  June  20  stands 
for  Luther's  letter,  we  have  not  the  letter  of  Jonas  to  which  it  is  a 
reply.  Is  the  theory  of  Bretschneider''  tenable,  that  Luther's  letter 
ought  to  be  dated  June  30?  We  think  not.  The  necessity  for  it 
which  Bretschneider  thought  he  saw,  rests  on  a  mistake.  There  is 
no  relation  between  the  letter  of  Jonas  which  he  cites,  and  the  reply 

'*  It  is  given  in  Coelestiniis,  i.  135,  136.     VV.iIch.,  xvi.  973,  No.  957. 
'"ll.  154,  No.  752. 

*' Coelestinus,  11.  205,  who  gives  it  under  July  3  as  a  "fragment." 
"XVI.  976.  ^■•'Corp.  Ref.,  11.  No.  752. 


44  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

of  Luther  dated  June  20.  Nor  would  a  letter  written  at  Augsburg 
June  29,  be  likely  to  be  answered  by  Luther  June  30.  There  is  no 
external  evidence  to  shake  the  correctness  of  the  date  June  20  ; 
there  is  much  both  external  and  internal  to  corroborate  it. 

The  first  sentence  of  Luther's  letter,  dated  June  20,  is  sufficient 
to  show  that  it  was  not  written  June  30.  The  "  three  full  weeks  of 
silence,"  exactly  fit,  as  we  have  seen,  the  date  June  20.  Three  full 
weeks  back  from  June  30,  would  bring  us  to  June  10.  Allow  three 
days  for  carriage,  and  we  have  June  7.  But  there  is  no  known 
letter  to  Luther  of  that  date  ;  but  we  have  Melanchthon's  of  June 
13,  June  19,  June  25,  June  26,  June  27,  to  Luther:  we  have 
Luther,  June  19,  complaining  to  Cordatus  of  the  silence  of  his 
friends  at  Augsburg;  at  the  same  date  to  Zwilling,  that  he  had  not 
heard  during  the  month  of  June  from  Augsburg;  June  20,  Luther 
is  sending  a  letter  to  Schnepf  at  Augsburg,  enclosing  a  letter  to 
Philip  of  Hesse;  June  25,  Luther  writes  to  Hausmann,  news 
from  Augsburg  evidently  derived  from  letters  recently  received  ; 
June  27,  he  replies  to  a  recent  letter  of  Melanchthon's,  and  speaks 
of  a  letter  received  from  Jonas  The  evidence  is  ample  and  con- 
clusive that  there  is  no  reason  for  changing  the  date  of  Luther's 
letter  of  June  20.  And  the  date  of  the  letter  of  Jonas  is  fixed  by 
positive  internal  evidence,  as  June  2^. 

After  a  thorough  survey  of  the  facts,  we  are  satisfied  that  the 
theory  which  best  harmonizes  them,  is  that  Jonas' s  letter  of  June 
25,  is  the  answer  to  Luther's  of  June  20,  and  that  the  striking  and 
unmistakable  points  of  coincidence,  are  the  result  of  Jonas's  reply 
to  Luther.  Luther's  words  again,  June  20,  may  refer  to  the  earlier 
letter  of  Jonas,  which  is  lost." 

e.  The  two  letters  in  which  Luther  makes  complaint  to  Melanch- 
thon  of  his  silence  are  the  letters  of  June  5  and  June  7.  Melanch- 
thon  answers  the  letter  of  June  5  on  the  13th,  and  Melanchthon's 
of  the  13th,  leads  to  Luther's  letter  to  Philip  on  the  20th.  Me- 
lanchthon's letters  of  June  13  and  19,  are  alluded  to  in  Luther's 
letter  of  June  2  7  to  Melanchthon. 

June  21. — i.  The  Nijrnberg  Legates  write:  " Alphonsus  Val- 
desius  called   Melanchthon  to  his  presence  several  times,  and  ex- 

>**  This  theory  completely  satisfies  the  facts,  stated  by  Kaanich :  Luther's  Antheil, 
118,  135,  and  a  number  of  other  facts  which  are  not  consonant  with  his  view, 
which  is  that  the  date  should  be  June  30.     See  Schirrmacher,  362,  486. 


1530.]  JUNE  9-25.  45 

pressed  the  wish  to  know  what  was  the  Lutheran  desire,  and  how 
the  matter  might  be  arranged.  Thereupon  Melanchthon  repHed  to 
him,  about  to  this  effect :  The  discord  had  arisen  mainly  on  the  arti- 
cles following:  The  Sacrament,  in  two  kinds,  the  marriage  of  priests 
and  monks,  the  separate  private  masses.  If  there  were  an  under- 
standing on  these  articles,  he  thought  that  means  could  easily  be 
found  for  a  satisfactory  arrangement  in  other  particulars.^^ 

It  is  evident  that  the  point  involved  in  the  conference  between 
Valdesius  and  Melanchthon,  was  that  of  the  abuses  to  be  corrected, 
and  not  the  (juestion  of  doctrine. 

ii.  On  the  morning  of  Tuesday,  the  Elector,  in  solitude, 
gave  himself  to  the  reading  of  the  Psalms,  and  to  fervent  prayers 
to  God,  to  aid  him  in  the  high  and  holy  work  to  which  he 
had  been  called.  After  carefully  weighing  the  proposition  of  the 
Emperor,  he  called  his  son  John  Frederick,  Melanchthon  and  Pon- 
tanus  (Briick),  and  had  a  long  and  confidential  interview  with  them, 
stating  that  his  own  conviction  and  wish  were  that  the  political  ques- 
tions should  not  be  touched  till  the  interests  of  Religion  had  been 
weighed,  buf  that  nevertheless  he  would  announce  no  decision  with- 
out the  consent  and  counsel  of  those  who  were  associated  with  him 
in  the  matter  of  religion.  At  a  later  hour  all  the  Estates  were  sum- 
moned to  his  residence  ;  the  Emperor's  Proposition  was  read  to 
them,  and  they  %vere  requested  carefully  to  weigh  it,  and  to  come 
prepared  the  next  day  to  discuss  it  and  decide  upon  the  proper 
course  to  take  in  regard  to  it.-* 

June  22. — The  Lutheran  Estates  concur  in  the  request  that  the 
religious  questions  first  be  taken  up.  The  Roman  Catholic  Estates 
agree  to  this,  but  decline  to  present  any  writing,  as  they  hold  to  the 
old  faith,  and  conform  strictly  to  the  Edict  of  Worms.  Friday,  the 
24th,  is  appointed  to  hear  the  Protestant  paper.  "The  five.  Elector 
and  Princes,"  as  Briick  constantly  calls  them,  direct  the  further 
careful  examination  of  the  Confession  on  the  part  of  the  theologians 
and  counselors,  and  solicit  for  an  extension  of  time  to  one  day 
later,  that  a  careful  transcript  may  be  made.  The  request  is  re- 
fused." 

June  23. — i.  On  the  Vigil  of  John  the  Baptist,  Thursday,  in  the 

'^Corp.  Ref.,  II.  121,  No.  7J4. 

'*  Coelestinus,  122.     Miiller,  568.     KiJllncr,  198. 

-'  Briick,  48-50.     Miiller,  561  seq.,  570.    Kollner,  198-200. 


46  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

full  assembly  of  the  Evangelical  Estates,  the  Confession  was  read 
once  more  so  that  if  any  one  had  an  objection  to  make,  or  a  change 
to  suggest,  it  might  be  fully  expressed  and  acted  on.  The  Confes- 
sion as  thus  read,  was  approved  by  all  and  each,  without  the  sug- 
gestion of  a  change  of  any  kind,  and  it  was  determined  to  solicit 
His  Majesty  on  the  following  day  that  it  might  be  read  in  the  audi- 
ence of  all  the  Estates  of  the  Empire.'^* 

ii.  The  signing  of  the  Confession  almost  certainly  followed  upon 
the  reading.  It  is  a  difficulty  still  answered  in  opposite  ways, 
whether  John  Frederick,  of  Saxony,  and  Duke  Francis,  of  Lune- 
berg,  signed  the  German  Confession.^"  It  is  beyond  dispute  that 
they  were  kept  entirely  in  the  background   in  all  the  preliminaries. 

June  24. — I.  Convention  of  all  the  orders  of  the  Empire. 

2.  The  Protestants  urge  that  they  be  now  allowed  to  read  their 
Confession  in  public  before  it  is  given  to  the  Emperor.  The  Em- 
peror promises  that  he  will  hear  it  the  next  day. 

The  Romish  party  resort  to  various  expedients  to  get  rid  of 
the  public  reading.  The  Emperor  endeavors  to  get  possession  of 
the  Confession  before  it  is  read,  but  the  firmness  ar\d  moderation 
of  the  Lutheran  Estates  triumph.  The  time  has  been  consumed,  so 
that  it  cannot  be  read  on  the  day  appointed. 

Before  June  25. — The  German  Codices  are: 

1.  Spalatin's  copy  in  his  own  writing  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion. This'"  belongs  to  the  first  or  earliest  of  the  families  of 
Codices. 

2.  The  Anspach  Codex  I.  contains  the  articles  of  faith,  with  the 
epilogue  of  part  first. ^'  It  belongs  to  the  second  family  of  German 
Codices,  coming  between  Spalatin*and  the  Confession  in  its  last 
form.  Probable  date,  before  June  16.  Taken  home  by  the  Mar- 
grave George. 

*^  Coelestiiuis,  I.  123  b.     KoUner,  199-201. 

^  See  the  able  discussion  in  KoUner,  201.  Plitt  decides  against  the  signing, 
R.  E.,  1877,  773. 

^^  Forstemann,  Urkiindenbuch,  i.  310-343.  No.  103,  Weber,  Gesch.  d.  A.  C, 
I.,  168-174,  cf.  Cyprian:  Historia,  Bcylagen,  xil.  167,  168.  Luther's  Werke 
Walch.,  XVI.  782,  No.  903. 

^MVeber,  I.  176  sq.  309  sq.  Forstemann,  i.  274  sq.  280  note.  The  text 
entire,  do.,  343-355.     Franclce,  L.  S.,  xxil.  14. 


1530.]  JUNE  9-25.  47 

3.  The  Hannoverian  Codex,  in  the  Royal  Electoral  Archives/'^ 
belongs  to  the  second  family  of  German  Codices. 

4.  The  Mentz  Codex — third  family. 

5.  The  Weimar  Codex. 

6.  The  Niirnberg  Codex. 

7.  The  Hessian  Codex. 

8.  The  Munich  Codex. 

9.  The  Anspach  Codex  II. 

June  25. — i.  The  Elector  John  writes  to  Luther  before  the  de- 
livery of  the  Confession,  "  which  we  with  the  other  Princes  and 
Estates  which  are  associated  with  us  in  the  matter  are  to  present."^' 

ii.  Melanchthon  writes  to  Luther  :  "  To-day  our  articles  of  faith 
will  be  presented.  The  Landgrave  approves  of  our  Confession  and 
has  subscribed  it."^* 

iii.  Justus  Jonas  writes  to  Luther  i^"*  "  To-day  at  two  o'clock  our 
articles  are  to  be  read. 

iv.  The  Niirnberg  Legates  write  to  the  Senate  :  "  On  last 
Wednesday  (June  22,  see  that  date),  at  the  desire  of  His  Im- 
perial Majesty,  the  Elector,  Princes,  and  Councils,  after  taking 
counsel,  came  together,  and  thereupon  determined  that  the  Articles 
of  Faith  should  take  precedence  of  the  Turkish  Question  in  the 
discussions"  (of  the  Diet). 

"  We  and  the  legate  from  Reutlingen  were  summoned  to  come  on 
last  Thursday  (June  23,  see  that  date)  early,  to  the  [Princes  of] 
Saxony,  Hesse,  Margrave  George  andLuneburg;  there  in  the  pres- 
ence of  their  Highnesses,  of  their  counselors  and  theologians,  of 
which  theologians  there  are  twelve,  independently  of  the  other 
Scholars  and  Doctors,  the  Instruction  (Unterricht)  which  had  been 
drawn  up  concerning  the  faith  was  read  and  examined,  and  it  was 
determined  to  present  and  read  it  to  His  Majesty  before  the  Estates 
of  the  Empire  yesterday  afternoon"  (Friday,  June  24th). 
A  graphic  account  is  then  given  of  the  struggle  already  detailed. 
"The  Instruction  (Unterricht)  is  to  be  heard  today.  The  In- 
struction, as  far  as  the  Articles  of  Faith  are  concerned,  is  in  sub- 
stance quite  in  conformity  with  what  we  have  before  sent  to  your 

.12  Weber,  I.  180,  sq.     Francke,  L.  S.,  XXII.  14. 

s^Walch,  XVI.  893.  '^Corp.  Ref.,  11.  125. 

^  Coelestiiius,  l.  135.     Walch,  xvi.  973.     See  June  20,  Luther's  letter. 


48  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

Excellencies,  except  that  it  has  been  improved  in  several  places,  and 
has  altogether  been  put  very  mildly,  but  still  in  our  judgment  nothing 
necessary  has  beeiv  omitted.  We  have,  therefore,  as  your  represen- 
tatives, accepted  it,  and  in  your  name  adhere  in  it  with  the  Princes 
and  Reutlingen."  .  .  .  "  We  are  also  informed  that  after  the  close 
of  the  proceedings  several  of  the  cities  made  complaint  that  we  had 
not  informed  them  of  the  Princes'  intentions,  and  taken  them  with 
us."  "  Sent  Saturday,  June  25th,  early,  as  soon  as  the  gates  were 
open,  1 5 30."^" 

v.  The  Augsburg  Confession  distinctly  states  who  present  it. 
"  We  whose  names  are  subscribed,  the  Elector  and  Princes,  and 
others  conjoined  with  us,"  and  the  subscriptions  show  who  they 
were.  Beyond  all  dispute,  i.  The  Elector  John;  2.  George  of 
Brandenburg;  3.  Ernst  of  Luneburg ;  4.  Philip  of  Hesse  ;  5. 
Wolfgang  of  Anhalt ;  6.  Niirnberg ;  7.  Reutlingen.  Two  of  the 
signatures  to  the  German  are  disputed,  i.  John  Frederick;  2. 
Francis  of  Luneberg.  The  Preface,  the  words  of  the  Articles,  and 
the  signatures  prove  that  the  seven  first  named  Estates  were  partici- 
pant in  the  discussion  which  ended  in  the  adoption  of  the  Con- 
fession as  a  common  Formula  of  Faith. 

X.    CflRONOLOGY  OF  TESTIMONY,  FROM  THE  DAY  AFTER 

THE    DELIVERY    OF    THE    CONFESSION    TO    THE 

PUBLICATION   OF    THE     LETTERS   OF    THE 

ELECTOR  AND  LUTHER  (OF  MAY   11 

AND  15):  JUNE  26,  1530—1557- 

June  26. — i.  The  Protestants,  at  the  request  of  the  Emperor, 
promise  not  to  publish  the  Confession  without  his  knowledge  and 
consent. 

ii.  Melanchthon  writes  to  Caraerarius  :  "  Yesterday  our  Confes- 
sion was  presented  to  the  Emperor.  I  changed  and  refashioned 
many  things  daily,  and  would  even  have  changed  more,  if  our 
counselors  would  have  permitted  it.  I  wish  that  you  could  get  our 
apology  to  read,  but  the  Emperor  forbids  it  to  be  printed."' 

ill.  Melanchthon  writes  to  Luther ;    speaks  of  the  sorrows  and 

^'i  Corp.  Refoi-matonim,  II.  127,  No.  73S.     SU-obcl  Miscellan.,  II.  34.     Fiken 
scher,  82,  83. 

'Corp.  Reform.,  ii.  140,  No.  741. 


1530.]  JUNE  26,  1530-1557.  49 

perils  which  surround  him,  in  which  Luther's  consolation  is  the 
only  thing  which  could  comfort  him.  His  enemies  are  active,  his 
friends  gone.  He  is  alone  and  deserted.  He  looks  to  Luther  as 
his  authority  in  all  things,  however  great,  for  guidance  in  action, 
for  comfort  in  sorrow.  "Our  defence  has  been  read  to  the  Em- 
peror ;   I  send  it  to  you  to  read."' 

iv.  Melanchthon  writes  to  Vitus  Theodorus  (Veit  Dietrich),  who 
is  with  Luther  at  Coburg.  He  implores  Vitus  to  use  his  influence 
with  Luther.  "For  the  letter  written  to  the  Landgrave,  I  have  you 
to  thank,  that  you  at  last  forced  him  to  it.  I  hope  it  Avill  do  good. 
Already,  indeed,  the  Landgrave  has  subscribed  with  us  in  the  Con 
fession,  where  there  is  also  an  article  concerning  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, in  accordance  with  Luther's  view."'' 

June  27. — i.  Luther  writes  to  Melanchthon,  strengthening  him. 
He  closes  by  saying  :  "  If  I  shall  hear  that  matters  with  you  are  in 
a  bad  state  and  that  there  is  danger,  I  shall  scarce  restrain  myself 
from  flying  to  you,  that  I  may  see  how  terrible  the  teeth  of  the 
Devil  are  round  about  you,  as  the  Scripture  saith  (Job  xli.  14)."* 
The  whole  correspondence  shows  that  Luther's  anxiety  was  in  re- 
gard to  the  safety  of  his  friends,  and  the  protection  of  the  cause 
from  the  violence  and  craft  of  its  enemies. 

ii.  Melanchthon  writes  to  Luther  twice  in  one  day,  and  to  Veit 
Dietrich,  showing  intense  anxiety  for  Luther's  advice  and  consola- 
tion.'' 

About  June  29  Jonas  writes  to  Luther,  giving  an  account  of 
the  delivery  of  the  Confession." 

June  30,  — i.  Veit  Dietrich  writes  to  Melanchthon,  in  reply  to 
his  letter  of  June  26  (see  that  date),  acknowledging  that  to  his 
( Dietrich's)  urgency  and  persistency  is  due  the  letter  written  by 
Luther  to  the  Landgrave,  and  asks  Melanchthon  to  let  him  know 


-Corp.  Reform.,  11.  140,  No.   741.  •''Corp.  Reform.,  141,  No.  742. 

*  Coeleslin.,  II.  198.  Chytraeus,  135.  Buddeus,  in.  Cyprian.  Beyl.,  179. 
Briefe:  De  Wette,  iv.  48,  No.  1234.  Germ.,  Spalatin,  Annales,  217.  Chytraeus, 
98  (223).  French,  128.  Luther's  Werke :  Jena,  v.  55.  Leipz.,  xx.  1S4. 
Walch.,  XVI.  1062.     See  Frick's  Seckendorf,  1089. 

•'•Corp.  Reformat.,  144-147,  Nos.  744-746. 

^Coclestinus,  11.  205.  Walch,  xvi.  I049,  Nn.  965.  Corp.  Reform.,  11,  154, 
No.  752.     See  June  20  ami  25. 

4 


so  CHRONOLOGY.  [1530. 

how  the  letter  was  received  by  the  Landgrave  (see  May  20  and 
June  20  .' 

ii.  Melanchthon  writes  to  Veit  Dietrich — is  anxious  to  know  Lu- 
ther's opinion  of  the  "Apology"  (the  Confession^** 

iii.  Luther  writes  to  Brentius  one  of  his  grandest  letters  of  en- 
couragement." 

iv.  Luther  writes  to  John  Agricola  :  anticipates  little  result  from 
the  Diet.'" 

V.  Luther  writes  to  Spalatin  :  complains  of  the  silence  of  his 
friends  in  Augsburg  ;  exhorts  them  to  trust  in  God." 

vi.  Luther  writes  to  Melanchthon  a  powerful  letter  of  encourage- 
ment :  "I  would  rather  fall  with  Christ  than  stand  with  the  Em- 
peror.'"-' 

vii.  Luther  writes  to  John  Frederick,  the  Electoral  Prince,  a  letter 
of  strengthening.'-' 

July  3. — i.  Luther  writes  to  Melanchthon  :  "I  yesterday  reread 
your  Apology  carefully  entire  (totam),  and  it  pleases  me  exceed- 
ingly.'"* 

■  ii.  Melanchthon  writes  to  Veit  Deitrich — wishes  to  know  whether 
Luther  received  the  picture  of  Vienna  besieged  (see  letter  of  May 
22);  he  speaks  of  it  as  a  beautifully  painted  picture,  and  suspects 
that  the  messenger  has  sold  it,  and  speaks  of  the  stupidity  and 
treachery  he  has  encountered  on  the  part  of  the  Suabian  messengers.'^ 

July  4. — Andrew  Osiander  writes  to  Linck  and  Schleupner  : 
Melanchthon  is  overwhelmed  with  labors  and  care,  and  overcome 
with  a  causeless  melancholy,  very  dejecting  to  others.'" 

July  5. — Luther  to  Melanchthon:    "We  have  good  hope,  not 

'Corp.  Ref.,  11.  158,  No.  755.     Coelestimis,  11.  275.      Walch,  XVI.  2137. 

''Corp.  Ref.,  u.  157,  No.  754. 

"  Coelcstinus,  I.  201.  Biuldeus,  123.  Chytmeus,  104.  Werke:  Jena,  V.  5S. 
Altenb.,  V.  167.     Leipz.,  xx.  194.     Walcli.,  xvi.  1079. 

'^  Coeleslin.,  i.  92  b.      Buddeiis,  119.     Walch,  xvi.  890. 

"Coelestin.,  I.  200.      Biuldeus,  120.     Walch,  xvi.    1076.     l)c  WeUe,  iv.  59. 

12  Biuldeus,  116.     Walch,  xvi.  1073.      De  Welle,  iv,  62. 

'■'Walch,  XVI.  2132.     De  Wette,  iv.  64.      Eilaiv^en,  54,  157. 

'<  Coeleslin.,  11.204  b.  Biuldeus,  127,  No.  137.  De  Welle,  iv.  67,  No.  1243. 
In  German:  Walch,  xvi.  1082,  No.  984.  See  Conserval.  Reformal.,  234  ;ei- 
ratum  of  June  for  July),  239,  240. 

'■■Corp.  Ref.,  II.  162,  No.  757.  »«  fcrp.  Reform.,  Ii.  103,  No.  759. 


1531.]  JUNE  26,  1530-1557-  51 

from  your  Diets  and  Councils,  but  from  Christ's  power  and  presence 
with  you.'"^ 

July  6. — i.  The  Niirnberg  Legates  send  a  copy  of  the  Confession 
in  Latin  to  the  Senate  of  Niirnberg/^ 

ii.  The  Halle  Legates  send  a  copy  of  the  German  Confession  to 
Halle  in  Schwabia. 

iii.  Luther  writes  to  Nicholas  Hausmann,  "  faithful  and  most  un- 
blemished bishop  of  the  Church  at  Zwickau,"  giving  him  an  account 
of  the  reading  of  the  Confession  at  Augsburg:  "Our  Confession, 
which  our  Philip  has  prepared" — words  of  paternal  love  and  pure 
admiration.'" 

iv.  Luther  writes  to  Cordatus:      '■*  So  glorious  a  Confession."-" 

V.  Luther  writes  to  Albert,  Archbishop  of  Mentz  :  "By  this  Con- 
fession we  clearly  testify  and  demonstrate  that  we  have  not  taught 
wrongly  or  falsely.''-'' 

July  9. — i.  Luther  writes  to  the  Elector  John:  "They  were 
compelled  to  hear  more  from  the  Confession  than  they  would  have 
heard  from  the  preachers  for  a  year."-^ 

ii.  Luther  to  Jonas  :  "  Christ  has  been  proclaimed  in  a  public 
and  glorious  Confession."'-' 

July  12. — lirentius  sends  a  copy  of  the  Confession  in  Latin  to 
Halle  in  Schwabia. 

July  13. — Melanchthon  writes  to  Luther:  "  Zwingli  has  sent 
hither  his  Confession  in  print.  You  would  say  the  man  is  simply 
beside  himself."-^ 

1531. — Luther:  "I  have  learned  that  when  the  Confession  of 
ours  was  read  the  opposite  part  were  greatly  amazed,  and  confessed 


"  Coelestin.,  h.  206.     Buddevis,  128.     Walch,  xvr.  1083,  No.  985. 
'*Corp.  Reform.,  11.  164,  No.  760. 

"Coeleslin.,  II.  206.      Buddeiis,  139.     I)e  Wette,  !V.  69.      Walch,  xvi.  104S, 
Conserv.  Ref.,  234. 

^Coelestin.,!!.  207.     Hiuldeus,  141.     W.ilch,  xvi.  1083.    Conserv.  Reformat., 
235- 

'■"Conserv.  Reformat.,  235,  and   references. 
^■'Conserv.  Ref.,  235,  and  references. 
'■'-''Cons.  Ref.,  236,  and  references. 

^♦Coelestin.,   II.   288  1).    Consil.    I,alin.  (Pezel),   i.    115.      Walch,  .vvi.   1202. 
Corp.  Ref.,  il.  193,  No.  78J. 


52  CHRONOLOGY.  [1534-55. 

that  it  was  the  pure  truth  ;  that  it  could  not  be  confuted  with 
Scripture."--^ 

1534. — Luther  writes  to  the  City  Council  of  Ratisbon  :  "Be  dil- 
igent in  obtaining  preachers  who  shall  teach  the  Gospel  or   Holy 

Scripture So  shall  they  not  err,  and  God  will  add  His 

grace.  Our  Confession  at  Augsburg  is  good  thereto,  and  so  pure 
that  even  our  enemies  were  compelled  to  praise  it;  and  His  Imperial 
Majesty  referred  it  uncondemned  to  a  Council,  which  is  a  token  that 
it  is  right."-'"' 

1555. — Erhard  Schnepf  (1495-1558),  the  devoted  friend  of 
Luther,  the  court  preacher  of  Philip  of  Hesje,  and  his  attendant  at 
the  Diet,  was  present  at  all  the  most  important  consultations  which 
preceded  the  delivery  of  the  Confession,  and  was  associated  with 
Melanchthon  and  Brentius  as  one  of  the  special  Counselors  in  the 
consultations  which  followed  it.  In  his  Confession  concerning  the 
Eucharist,"  he  says:  "It  is  well  known  to  all  who  were  present,  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  153s,  at  that  deliberation  in  Augsburg,  at  which 
the  Confession,  recently  written,  was,  in  advance  of  its  being  that  it 
offered  to  Charles  V.,  Roman  Emperor,  submitted  to  the  judgment 
of  the  theologians  of  the  Princes,  of  those  also  who  were  Coun- 
selors of  our  Princes,  and  to  the  Legates  of  the  two  cities,  for 
which  reason  it  was  determined  to  employ  only  the  adverb  vere 
(truly),  though  it  was  ambiguous,  as  many  employed  it  in  the  dis- 
cussions of  that  time  ;  since  not  one  of  those  who  united  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession  and  were  admitted  into  this  Congress  of  delib- 
erators  thought  with  the  Zwinglians.  I  also  was  present,  and  was 
a  certain  part  of  what  was  done,  though  for  no  merit  of  mine.  This 
I  mention,  lest  any  one  should  imagine  that  I  speak  from  mere  hear- 
say, and  should  on  that  account  endeavor  to  detract  from  the  weight 
of  my  testimony." 

This  testimony  is  of  great  importance.  It  comes  from  a  man  of  the 
highest  character,  who  was  participant  in  all  he  describes.  He  makes 
an  appeal  to  the  fact  that  what  he  asserts  was  well  known  to  all  who 
were  present — an  appeal  made  while  many  of  them  were  still  living. 


■^^  Wanning  an  seine  lieben  Deutschen.    Werke  :    Jena,  v.  290  [273].    Leipzit 
XX.  298.     Walch,  XVI.  i960.     Erlangen,  XXV.  17.     Chylrauus,  266  [532]. 
26 De  Wette,  iv.  547,  No.  1592.     Erlangen,  55,  57,  No.  475. 
"Confessio  de  Eucharistia  :  Jena,  1555.  1556,  8  vo. 


1555-57.]  JUNE  26,  1530-1557-  53 

He  speaks  of  the  document  as  recently  written,  and  identifies  it  with 
the  Confession  offered  to  the  Emperor.  He  tells  clearly  to  whom  it 
was  submitted  ;  by  whom  it  was  discussed,  and  its  language  settled. 
These  were  i.  The  theologians  of  the  Princes;  2.  The  Counselors 
of  the  Princes;  3.  The  Legates  of  the  two  cities.  This  itself  de- 
monstrates that  the  "  Congress  of  deliberators  "  was  subsequent  to 
May  22.  The  single  fact  that  Schnepf  was  present  at  it,  proves  that  it 
refers  to  nothing  previous  to  May  11,  for  Schnepf  did  not  come  till 
May  12.  4.  Schnepf  shows  that  the  discussion  sometimes  descended 
to  the  minutia  of  a  single  term,  and  that  this  discussion  was  deter- 
minative. He  says  that  '-vere,"  in  spite  of  the  objection  that  some 
persons  gave  it  an  ambiguous  turn,  was  retained,  because  the  Con- 
gress of  deliberators  preferred  it.  5.  The  period  alluded  to  by 
Schnepf  has  always  rightly  been  identified  with  that  of  which  Me- 
lanchthon  speaks  in  1560;  the  accord  on  every  topic  on  which  they 
speak  in  common  is  perfect,  and  the  time  is  fixed  as  later  than 
May  22.'-* 

1556.  — In  Melanchthon's  letter  to  Flacius  lUyricus  (Sept.  5th) 
he  says :  "  You  reprove  me  for  writing  the  Repetitio  of  the  (Augs- 
burg) Confession  (1551).  I  wrote  the  former  also  (the  Augsburg 
Confession),  when  I  had  many  to  reprove  me,  none  to  aid  me."-'-* 

1557. — The  Elector's  letter  of  May  11,  1530,  and  Luther's  letter 
of  May  15,  appear  in  the  Wittenberg  Edition  of  Luther's  German 
Works.  This  edition  began  to  be  issued  in  1539,  and  the  first  vol- 
ume and  part  of  the  second,  were  revised  by  Luther,  whose  death 
prevented  his  supervision  of  the  whole.  The  ninth  volume  appeared 
in  1557,  edited  by  Melanchthon,  and  with  his  dedication  to  Otto 
Heinrich,  and  it  is  this  volume  which  contains  the  two  letters.^" 

The  Elector's  letter  is  so  plainly  in  his  own  name  alone,  and-  not 
in  that  of  any  part  whatever  of  the  signing  Princes  and  cities,  and 
Luther's  reply  is  so  purely  and  absolutely  to  the  Elector  alone,  with 

"Griindlich.  Historia.,  1584.  Ger.,  109.  Lat.,  135.  Cyprian. :  Histor.,  56. 
[66].  Walch:  IiUrod.,  169,  transl.  by  C.  T.  Krauth,  Ev.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1849, 
250.  Kollner,  180,  42.  Francke:  L.  S.,  xvili.  16.  J.  T.  Muller :  Einl., 
i.xil.     Zockler,  220.     Schirrmacher  :  Biiefe  u.  Aden  43,  467. 

2»Consil.  Latin,  11.  253.  Corp.  Ref.,  viii.  843,  No.  6067.  See  Acta  Colioq. 
Aldeburg,  438,  Acta  und  Handlung,  340. 

™Wittb.,  IX.  406.  See  Luther's  Werke :  Walch  :  xxiv.  621.  Eriangen, 
54,  145.     Briefe:  De  Wette,  iv.  17. 


54  CHRONOLOGY.  [1559-60. 

the  expression  of  his  regarding  it  as  completely  in  Melanchthon's 
hands,  that  Melanchthon's  language  of  1560  could  not  refer  to 
these  letters. 

ii.  Luther's  Works  are  published  at  Jena,  in  German.  In  these^' 
also  appear  the  Elector's  letter  to  Luther,  May  11,  and  Luther's 
reply,  May  15,  1530.  If  Melanchthon  had  had  reference  to  this 
correspondence  in  his  words  of  1560,  it  is  inconceivable  that 
he  should  not  have  referred  to  it  as  entirely  conclusive.  The 
solemn  appeal  to  those  yet  living,  implies  that  what  he  speaks  of 
was  not  generally  known,  and  that  some  might  be  inclined  to  chal- 
lenge it.  If  the  communication  of  the  Princes  had  been  the  Elec- 
tor's letter  of  May  11,  and  Luther's  approval  that  of  May  15,  this 
would  have  been  impKDSsible. 

XI.  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE   TESTIMONY    IN   REGARD    TO    THE 

AUGSBURG  CONFESSION  FROM   1558  TO  THE  DEATH 

OF   MELANCHTHON,  APRIL    19,  1560. 

1-559-1560 Melanchthon's  Last  Testimonies.  Melanch- 
thon wrote,  September  29,  1559,  the  Preface  to  the  German  Cor- 
pus Doctrinas,  in  which  he  gives  an  account  of  the  origin,  aims, 
progress,  completion,  and  presentation  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion.' Nearly  five  months  later,  in  his  Preface  to  the  Latin  Cor- 
pus Doctrinse,  and  to  his  Complete  Works  he  prepared  a  similar 
account.  It  was  written  February  16,  1560,  on  his  sixty-fourth 
birthday,  with  the  presentiment  of  approaching  death  strong  upon 
him.  Two  months  after  (April  19,  1560,)  he  died.  It  is  his 
final  statement ;  the  fullest  and  most  carefully  prepared  history  of 
the  Confession  which  ever  came  from  his  pen.  It  is  not  a  trans- 
lation of  the  German  Preface  of  1559,  but  a  longer  document, 
covering  the  same  general  ground,  with  many  points  of  parallelism, 
but  with  distinctive  features  showing  a  careful  retrospect  and  re- 
vision, and  a  solicitude  to  mark  with  precision  especially  the  succes- 
sion of  events.     He  meant  it  for  his  age,  and  for  posterity.'^     We 

*i  Fifth  part,  p.  27;  See  Luther's  Werke:  Erlangen,  54,  145.  Briefe;  De 
Wette,  IV.  17. 

1  Corpus  Doctrina;  Christlanoe,  Das  ist,  Gantze  Summa.,  Leipzig,  1560,  Folio. 
Corpus  Reformat.,  ix.,  No.  6830. 

'^Corpus  Doctrina;  Christianae ;  Quae  est  Summa.,  Lipsia;,  fol.,  1560,  rs63. 
Operum  Omnium,  P.  Melanchthon,  Wittenbergiv;,  Part  I.,  fok,  1560,  1601. 
Corp  Reformatorum,  ix.,  No.  6932.     Pezelius :  Consilia,  i.  667,  11.  390. 


1559-60.]          melanchthon's   last  testimonv.  55 

will  give  a  translation  of  the  parts  of  Melanchthon's  history  which 
bear  upon  the  questions  under  discussion,  incorporating  in  brackets 
the  parallel  matter  from  the  German:  "Nor  was  the  Emperor 
Charles,  at  the  beginning,  willing,  without  the  judgment  of  a  Synod 
[it  had  been  at  that  time  the  earnest  and  final  purpose  of  Charles 
V.  to  have  a  General  Council  convened  in  conformity  with  due 
order],  and  without  a  judicial  examination,  to  blot  out  Luther's  doc- 
trine and  our  churches,  though  there  were  many  who  urged  on  him 
that  Herodian  policy.  But  when  he  saw  that  there  were  many  open 
abuses,  as,  with  a  soft  plirase,  some  characterized  certain  dark  forms 
of  idolatry,  he  long  and  constantly  demanded  that  a  Synod  should 
be  summoned.  As  this  was  his  will  on  his  return  to  Germany,  1530, 
he  called  the  Princes  to  Augsburg  [these,  the  Elector  and  Princes  and 
cities],  that  a  Confession  should  there  be  presented.  Of  this  a  nar- 
rative ought  to  be  given,  inasmuch  as  it  is  necessary  that  posterity 
should  know  that  our  Confession  was  neither  written  of  individual 
purpose,  nor  thrust  upon  the  Emperor  not  demanding  it  [this  Con- 
fession which  was  delivered  to  the  Emperor  in  the  Diet,  1530]. 
But  either  some  Confession  had  to  be  presented,  or  it  would  have 
to  be  shown  by  dissembling,  that  the  doctrine  which  had  already  been 
received,  had  been  abandoned,  and  there  were  also  some  at  that 
time  who  wished  to  avoid  the  perils  of  Confession.  But  others, 
the  Princes  and  Officials  (Gubernatores^,  whose  names  follow  the 
Confession  [the  Elector  and  Princes  and  cities],  believed  that  the 
Confession  should  be  offered  as  evidence  that  they  had  not  acted  in 
levity,  or  impelled  by  any  unlawful  desire,  but  that  for  the  glory  of 
God  and  the  salvation  of  their  own  souls,  and  the  souls  of  many,  they 
had  embraced  the  purer  doctrine.  I  brought  together,  therefore, 
in  singleness  of  purpose  the  principal  points  of  the  Confession, 
which  is  extant,  embracing  pretty  nearly  the  sum  of  the  doctrine  01 
our  Churches  [this  Confession,  as  God  had  ordained  and  given  it, 
'  was  drawn  together  by  me].  I  assumed  nothing  to  myself,  for  in  the 
presence  of  the  Princes  and  Officials  [the  Elector,  and  Princes  and 
Legates,  who  subscribed  it]  and  of  the  preachers  [with  their  Coun- 
selors and  preachers  who  were  there],  it  was  discussed  and  de- 
termined upon  [diligently  pondered],  in  regular  course,  sentence  by 
sentence  [all  the  Articles].  The  complete  form  of  the  Confession 
was  subsequently  sent  to  Luther,  who  wrote  to  the  Princes  that  he 
had  both  read  this  Confession  and  approved  it.     That  these  things 


56  chkonoi,0(;y.  [1559-60. 

are  so,  the  Princes,  and  other  honest  and  learned  men  yet  living,  will 
remember  [gracious  Princes  and  Counts,  and  other  honorable  men, 
who  by  God's  grace  are  yet  living,  can  testify].  After  this,  before 
the  Emperor  Charles,  in  a  great  assembly  of  the  Princes,  this  Con- 
fession was  read." 

Character  and  Value  of  MelanchthorC s  Tesihfwny  of  iS^o.  It  is 
hardly  possible  to  overestimate  the  Value  of  Melanchthon's  testi- 
mony, as  thus  given  in  1560.  It  comes  from  the  Composer  of  the 
Confession,  who  beyond  any  man  and  all  men  was  competent  to 
give  a  clear  testimony — a  man  careful  in  the  minutest  detail,  weigh- 
ing and  reweigMng  every  word.  It  was  given  a  little  before  his 
death,  when  he  was  strongly  under  a  presentiment  that  his  life  was 
near  its  close.  He  declares  that  it  is  a  statement  meant  for  pos- 
terity.^ He  writes  it  with  the  solemnity  and  solicitude  of  one  who 
makes  a  last  will  and  testament.  He  appeals  to  those  yet  living,  of 
that  memorable  company  of  Confessors  who  met  at  Augsburg.  It 
was  a  testimony  which  would  be  scanned  by  friend  and  foe  ;  would  be 
sure  to  be  challenged  if  there  were  anything  doubtful  in  it.  But  it 
was  never  challenged.  Not  only  is  there  the  negative  evidence  that 
no  such  challenge  can  be  found,  but  there  is  the  positive  evidence 
that  from  the  beginning  onward  it  was  accepted  as  indisputable 
authority  of  the  highest  order  by  all  parties.  The  Crypto-Calvinists 
and  Unionists,  against  some  of  whose  pretences  it  is  so  decisive, 
garbled  it,  but  never  disputed  its  accuracy.  It  may  be  worth  while, 
however,  to  prove  more  particularly  that  its  historic  reliability  and 
value  have  been  noticed  from  the  beginning,  and  that  it  has  been 
quoted  unchallenged  in  a  solitary  respect  by  writers  of  the  most 
opposite  schools  for  ages. 

i.  It  is  quoted  by  the  Saxon  theologians  in  the  Altenburg  Colloquy 
March  5,  1569;'  by  the  theologians  of  Leipzig  and  Wittenberg  ;* 
Zacharias  Ursinus  (Ref.),  158 1  f  Kirchner,  Selneccer,  and  Chem- 

^  Quod  eo  narrandum  est,  quia  necesse  t.^\.  posterilalem  scire  Confessionem 
nostram  nee  private  consilio  scriptam  esse. 

*  Acta  Colloquii,  Lipsiae,  1570,  p.  437.  Acta  und  Ilandlung,  Wittenberg, 
«570,  p.  339- 

*Endlicher  Bericht,  Wittemberg,  1571,  p.  12. 

'  De  Libro  Concordite  Admonitio ;   Neustadii,  1581,  143,  144. 


1559-60.]         mf-lanchthon's  last  testimony.  57 

nitz,  15S4;'  Pezelius,  1600;'  Hospinian  (Reformed),  1602;'' 
Hutter,  1602;'"  Grawer,  1626;"  John  Miiller,  1630;'-  Carpzov, 
1665  ;'^  Godofred  Hoffmann,  1727  ;"  Salig,  1730  ;''  The  Historical 
Religious  Dialogue,  1730;'"  Walch,  1732;'^  Boerner,  1751:" 
Ernesti,  1752,  1777;'"  Danz,  1829  j-"  Rotermund,  1829;-''  Kollner, 
1837;-'-'  Friederic  Francke,  1847  ;-'■'  Plitt,  iSSj  ;'^*  and  by  many 
others. 

ii.  It  is  constantly  quoted  in  preference  to  the  statement  of  1559, 
as  later,  ampler,  and  clearer.  When  Melanchthon's  testimony  is 
given  in  German  works,  instead  of  taking  even  his  own  statement  in 
his  German  of  1559,  the  Latin  of  1560  is  either  retained  or  trans- 
lated, as  by  the  Saxon  Theologians,  1569;''-^  the  theologians  of 
Leipzig  and  Wittenberg,  1571; -"  Kirchner,  Selneccer,  and  Chem- 
nitz, 1584;"  John  Miiller,  1630;   Salig,  1730;   and  others. 

iii.  The  authorities  which  (luote  Melanchthon's  words  of  1560  are 
clear  as  to  the  identity  of  that  of  whic  h  he  speaks,  with  the  Confes- 
sion as  delivered  and  published  :  "The  entire  Confession  as  it  is 
now  in  the  hands  of  every  one  ;"  "  the  entire  Confession  as  it  be- 
came shaped;"'"*  "the  one  common  Confession,  which  was  pre- 
sented in  the  name  of  all  our  Churches  to  the  Emperor;  "-"  "the 
Confession  which  was  given  (to  the  Emperor).""'' 

iv.  These  authorities  all  have  the  same  view  as  to  precisely  what 
came  into  discussion:  "All  and  every  one  of  the  Articles;"'" 
"Article  by  Article;  "•'"  "each  of  the  heads ;""^  "the  doctrine  of 
every  Article;  "-'"^  "Article  after  Article — all  the  Articles;  "•'"  "  all 
its  heads.  "^® 


^ Griindliche  Ilistoria,  Leipzig,  1584,  fol.  109.     Solida  ac  Vera,  C.  A.  His- 
toria,  transl.  per  Godfried,  Lipsire,  1585,  4  to.,  135,  136. 

*Consilia  Melanchthoiiis,  390-395.  "  Hisloria  Sacramenlar.,  147,  148. 

•"August.  Confess.,  7,  9,  10.  ••  Praelect.  in  A.  C,  1)7. 

''■'Augsl).  Confess.,  121.  '•' Isagoge,  104,  105. 

"  Commentar.  in  A.  C,  10.  i^Historie  d.  A.  C,  I.  168. 

"•IIi>tor.  Reiig.  Gespriiclie  aus  Sleidan,  etc.,  20,  32. 

"Introd.,  169.  '■'*  Institutiones,  32.  ''■' I'laelectioncs,  45. 

■■"•Augsh.  Confess.,  5,  6,  9,  12.      -'  Cicscliiclite,  50.  '•'- Synil)()lil<,  iSo,  41. 

■^^  Lib.  Symh.,  XVIII.  16.  ^'  Einl.  in  die  Augustana,  i.  554. 

■^* German  Acta,  339.  ^^  Bericlit,  12.  '■'"  Giiind.  Hist.,  109. 

■*  Saxon  Theologians,  339,  b.       '^"  Cuawer,  216.  ^"Joh.  Miiller,  123. 

•"  Saxon  Theologians,  339,  b.      .  ^- Kirchner,  etc,  109.     ••■' Grawer,  il  7. 

=«  [oh.  Miiller,  121.  s^Salig,  168.  »6  Walch.  Int.,  169. 


58  CHRONOLoov.  [1559-60. 

V.  The  authorities  are  agreed  as  to  the  character  and  results  of  the 
discussion.  "There  was  a  discussion  of  the  Articles,  all  and  each,  in 
order,  and  as  necessity  required,  and  the  opinion  of  every  one  had  a 
hearing."-'"  "The  whole  Confession,  from  Article  to  Article,  espe- 
cially the  tenth  article,  which  treats  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  was  sub- 
jected to  the  judgment  (Urteib,  review  (Censuren),  and  considera- 
tion of  the  Princes  and  Estates,  and  of  their  Theologians  and 
Counselors,"  "to  be  judged  of;  "^^  "in  order,  an  examination  being 
instituted,  they  diligently  deliberated  and  discussed  concerning  each 
point ;  "■'"  "  revised,  decided  upon,  and  approved  ;""  "  sufficiently 
pondered,"  "  well-weighed,  and  deliberated  on  through  all  the  Arti- 
cles; ""  "by  all  the  Lutheran  theologians  there  assembled  this  Con- 
fession was  composed ; ""  "it  was  unanimously  approved  before  it 
was  confirmed  by  the  subscription  of  the  Princes  and  the  cities  ;  "" 
'•  they  considered  the  Confession  in  the  most  thorough  manner;"" 
"after  thorough  deliberation,  on  the  part  of  the  Evangelical  Theo- 
logians present,  concerning  each  of  the  Articles,  Melanchthon,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  common  decision,  finished  the  Confession;"*'' 
"  not  only  submitted  to  the  judgment  of  the  other  Theologians,  but 
in  the  Council  of  the  Orders  who  were  to  subscribe  it,  carefully  con- 
sidered and  confirmed  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  all — all  its 
heads  were  pondered  and  confirmed.  .  .  .  Recognized  and  approved 
by  the  suffrage  of  all,  it  was  again  transmitted  to' Luther;  ""'  "the 
separate  Articles  were  publicly  submitted  by  Melanchthon  to  the 
representatives  of  the  Evangelical  party,  and  not  only  by  the  other 
theologians,  but  also  by  the  Civil  Counselors — nay,  by  the  Princes 
themselves,  were  every  time  most  thoroughly  discussed  and  con- 
sidered, and  only  after  the  most  thorough  consideration  were  deter- 
mined."'" 

vi.  They  are  agreed  as  to  the  presence  in  which  the  discussion 
took  place  :   "In  the  presence  of  the  Princes,  their  Counselors  and 

•^'  Acta  u.  Handl.,  Altenb.,  1570,  339,  b. 
^Griindl.  Ilistoiia,  1585  ;   Germ.:    109;     Lat.:    135. 

^^  Grawer,  117.         '"' Mentzer,  10.  ■"  Jolm  Muller,  1630,  ]\  121,  123. 

^'■'Carpzov,  104.       ^^Caloviiis:   Exegema.  ch.  11.,  sec.  3.         *' Cyprian,  56. 
<^  Boerner,  32. 

«\Valch.:   Iiitnxliict..  168,  169.     Ev.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1849,  250,251. 
*'Kollner:    Synil)olik,  178,  180,41,42.     "  Niir  nach   tier  genaiicsten  Erwa- 
•  run^  fest-ijestellt." 


1559-60.]         mf.lanchthon's  last  testimony.  59 

preachers;  ""*  "the  Elector,  the  Princes  and  Estates,  whose  names 
are  found  attached  to  the  Confession  ;  "*'  "the  associated  Princes  and 
Estates — the  Princes  and  other  magistracy— and  their  theolo^sians  and 
Counselors  ;  "^"  "  in  the  presence  of  the  Princes  and  of  the  Legates 
of  the  cities;  and  the  other  theologians  (beside  Philip),  who  were 
assembled  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  labored  not  a  little  in  complet- 
ing the  Augsburg  Confession  ;  "  "the  Princes  by  whose  command 
and  wish  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  written,  and  who  presented 
it  to  the  Emperor;"^'  "all  the  Evangelical  Princes  and  Estateii, 
their  theologians  and  Counselors— the  Princes  and  other  magistracy 
— seven  princes,  two  cities—  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  those  asso- 
ciated with  him  ;''  "the  Evangelical  Church  in  Saxony,  Branden- 
burg, Liineburg,  Hesse,  Anhalt,  Niirnberg,  Reutlingen  ;  ""  "the 
entire  Protestant  Estates  ;  ""  "  not  only  in  the  presence  of  the  other 
theologians  whom  the  Princes  and  the  Legates  of  those  who  were 
absent  had  brought  with  them,  but  in  the  assembly  also  of  tlie  orders 
who  subscribed  it."^^ 

vii.  Wherever  these  authorities  have  occasion  to  represent  the 
na?nes  of  those  who  were  present,  as  involved  in  Melanchthon's 
statements,  they  mention  the  names  of  some  who  were  not  present 
until  after  May  11,  and  of  others  not  present  until  after  May  22  : 
"  Schnepf,  Brentius,  and  many  other  theologians,  who  were  present 
at  the  Diet  on  our  side  ;  "^^  "  Schnepf,  Brentius,  Andrew  Osiander, 
John  Agricola,  and  others."^* 

viii.  They  are  all  agreed  as  to  when  in  general  this  sending  to 
Luther  of  which  Melanchthon  here  speaks  took  place.  It  was  after 
these  discussions  :  "In  such  manner  also  the  entire  Confession,  as 
it  became  shaped"  (in  the  presence  of  the  Princes,  and  their  Coun- 
selors and  preachers)  "was  sent  to  Luther;"^'  "when  now  this 
same  writing  of  the  Confession  had  been  prepared,  they,  the  Princes, 
sent  it  to  Luther  ;"^''  "  the  other  (Lutheran)  churches  drew  up  their 
confessions  and  brought  them  with  them  to  Augsburg  ;  lest,  there - 

**  Saxon  Theolog.,.339,  b. 

*' Theologians  of  Leipzig  atid  Wittenberg,  n,  b. 

^Kirchner,  etc.  109.  ^' Grawer,  117. 

•wjoh.  Miiiier,  121-123.  ^.-iSalig,  168. 

■'■*  Walch,  Int.,  168,  169  ;  translated  by  C.  P.  Krauth,  Ev.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1849,  250. 

**  Crawer,  116.     Carpzov,  104.  ^^  Walch,   Int.,  169. 

^' Saxon  Theolog.,  339,  b.  ^  Wittenb.  and  Leip/..  Theol.,  12,  h. 


6o  CHKONOLOGY.  [1559-60. 

fore,  these  Confessions  should  be  neglected,  by  command  of  the 
Protestant  Princes,  a  comparision  was  instituted  between  them,  and 
finally,  after  deliberation  and  accurate  examination,  one  common 
Confession  was  drawn  up.  Subsecjuently  {deinde),  after  (post- 
quavi)  the  common  Confession  was  drawn  up  from  the  private  con- 
fessions, it  was  not  presented  without  Luther's  judgment  and  ap- 
proval, but  was  first  sent  to  Luther  to  be  judged  and  examined.  .  . 
All  the  rest  of  the  theologians,  there  assembled  at  Augsburg,  were 
unwilling,  without  Luther's  judgment,  to  present  the  Augsburg 
Confession."'"  After  citing  the  letter  of  May  ii  and  May  22,*"' 
Walch  goes  on  to  say  :  "  Melanchthon  had  before  him  not  only  the 
XVII  Articles,  but  other  outlines  of  the  chief  points  of  the  Evan- 
gelical doctrine.  For,  in  addition  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  the 
other  Evangelical  Princes  and  Orders  had  caused  formulas  of  con- 
fession to  be  written  by  their  theologians,  which,  by  their  permis- 
sion, were  consigned  to  Melanchthon,  that  after  a  careful  perusal  of 
them  he  might  finish  the  Confession  to  be  presented  to  the  Diet.'"" 
''Before  this  Confession  was  presented,  it  was  communicated  to  the 
other  theologians  whom  the  Princes  and  the  Legates  of  those  who 
were  absent  had  brought  with  them.  .  .  .  In  the  assembly  also  of  the 
Orders  who  subscribed  it,  all  its  heads  \vere  pondered  and  con- 
firmed ;  which  being  done,  it  was  again  sent  to  Luther  before  it 
was  read  in  public  ;  "  or,  as  Walch  still  more  amply  adds  in  the  next 
page  :  "  Thus  recognized  and  approved  by  the  suffrages  of  all,  the 
C'onfession  was  again  transmitted  to  Luther,  that  if  anything  yet 
remained  which  he  desired  to  advise  he  might  now  suggest  it.""'' 
Kollner,  quoting  the  words  of  1560,  including  the  "  Missa  est 
deinde  et  Luthero,"  adds:  "What  Melanchthon  says  above  holds 
good  only,  as  shown  in  the  development  we  have  given,  of  that  time, 
when  the  Estates  demanded  the  completion  and  delivery  of  the 
Confession  in  the  name  of  them  all,  in  a  Common  Symbol,  conse- 
quently about  the  8th  of  June.'""  Francke,  after  mentioning  the 
copy  of  May  11,  approved  by  Luther  May  15,''' says  that  it  was 
again  amended  by  Melanchthon  and  others,  especially  by  Pontanus, 

^"Gravver,  116.  •'"  Inliod.,  167. 

"'  Do.,  167,  168,  sec.  V. 

"2  Do.,  16S,  169,  .sec.  VI.,  C.  P.  K  's  transl.,  Kv.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1849. 

"^  Symbolik,  180,41.  ^'^  L.  S.,  xvi.  9. 


1877-78.]  THE    FKEIi    DIET.  6 1 

May  23-24/-^  and  tliat  it  is  certain  that  the  Latin  formula  was  de- 
Hvered  to  the  Legates  of  the  cities  and  the  other  Protestant  Orders, 
May  31  ;'■"  George  of  Brandenburg  makes  the  distinct  movement 
toward  uniting  all  the  Orders  in  the  Confession,  June  8;''"  the  Ger- 
man Formula  is  submitted  June  14/''' and  after  this  comes  the  dis- 
cussion mentioned  by  Melanchthon/"  with  tlie  express  inference 
from  the  "  deinde  "  that  it  "  was  sent  again,  as  it  seems.""" 

ix.  All  the  writers  identify  the  discussions  of  which  Schnepf 
speaks  (1555),  with  those  of  which  Melanchthon  speaks  (1560)."' 

X.  But  great  as  was  the  value  attached  to  the  last  testimony  of 
Melanchthon,  and  constant  as  was  the  use  made  of  it,  its  historic 
importance  was  not  fully  estimated  in  every  case,  nor  the  inferences 
involved  in  it  completely  drawn,  because  the  chronology  was  en- 
tirely overlooked  in  some  cases,  and  in  others  was  misunderstood. 
The  materials  of  the  chronology  were  ir.deed  imperfect  till  the  Re- 
ports of  the  Niirnberg  Legates  brought  them  to  light.  We  may 
claim  to  have  helped  to  put  this  important  testimony  in  its  proper 
historic  light,  by  a  more  full  and  rigid  application  of  the  facts  of 
the  chronology  to  it  than  had  hitherto  been  made.  We  have  thus 
confirmed  the  results  of  the  labors  of  Walch,  Kollner  and  others  of 
the  very  greatest  writers  on  the  Confession,  by  showing  that  Me- 
lanchthon's  words  of  1560  refer  to  a  sending  of  the  Confession  to 
Luther  in  June,  before  its  delivery.     There  was  a  third  sending. 

XII.  TO-DAY. 

I.    THE   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION    AND    THE  "  FREE    DIET." 

The  first  essay  read  in  the  Free  Diet  began  with  the  words:  "The 
Augsburg  Confession  is  the  doctrinal  Magna  Charta  of  all  Protestant 
dom."  With  this  sentence  Dr.  John  G.  Morris  opened  his  essay  on 
the  ."Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England."  It  was  an  omen  of  the  distinguished  place 
the  Augsburg  Confession  was  destined  to  take  in  the  essays  and  de- 
liberations of  the  Diet.  In  some  shape  the  Confession  came  up  at 
almost  every  point.     Some  doctrine,  or  some  fact,  in  which  it  was 


®  Dc,  XVI.  10.  *'®  Do.,  xvii.  n. 

*' Do.,  XVII.  12.  88  Do.,  XVII.  13. 

««  Do.,  XVIII.  15.  '"  Do.,  xviii,  16. 

"  See  ihe  citations  under  i. 


62  CHRONOLOGY.  [1877-78. 

involved,  seemed  imi)licated  with  nearly  every  topic  that  was 
touched.  Whatever  the  centrifugal  force  might  be  at  the  begin- 
ning of  a  discussion,  everything  seemed  to  drop  into  the  Augs 
burg  Confession,  especially  into  its  controverted  parts,  before  the 
discussion  closed. 

i;.    THE     POINT    ACTUALLY    MADE    BY    DR.    CONRAD    AND    CHALLENGED 
BY  DR.   BROWN,  IN  THE  DIET. 

In  Dr.  Conrad's  Essay,  as  read  before  the  Diet,  he  maintained 
only  tii)o  sendings  of  the  Confession  previous  to  its  delivery,  the 
third  sending  being  the  undisputed  one,  after  the  delivery.  It  was, 
therefore,  the  second  sending,  May  2 2d,  which  was  challenged  by 
Dr.  Brown.  Dr.  Conrad  made  no  reference  to  the  date  "June  2d" 
— Dr.  Brown's  challenge,  therefore,  as  regards  Dr.  Conrad,  in- 
volved him  in  the  assertion  that  there  was  but  one  sending  before 
the  delivery,  that  of  May  11.  The  ''third"  sending  of  Dr. 
Conrad's  position  in  the  Diet,  was  the  one  after  June  25th.' 

III.    THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION  AFTER  THE  DIET. 

The  discussion  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  did  not  close  with  the 
discussions  of  the  Diet.  Dr.  Conrad  revised,  and  in  a  large  meas- 
ure rewrote  his  essay  on  the  Characteristics  of  the  Confession, 
Dr.  Brown  made  a  new  issue,  and  substituted  it  in  the  minutes  of 
the  Diet  for  the  original  one.  We  added  a  note  in  vindication  of 
what  we  supposed  to  be  the  point  challenged,  and  repudiating  the 
date  on  which  Dr.  Brown  laid  so  much  stress,  not  imagining  thai 
Dr.  Brown  would  falsify  in  direct  terms  his  own  record  on  a  distinct 
matter  of  fact.  We  supposed  (very  incorrectly,  as  we  afterwards 
discovered,)  that  we  had  failed  to  notice  at  the  time  an  allusion  to 
the  date.  We  know  now  that  the  statement  of  a  challenge  on  the  date 
is  a  pure  fiction.  What  had  tempted  Dr.  Brown  became  manifest 
in  the  Lutheran  Quarterly  of  April,  in  which,  in  very  cold  blood, 
he  repeats  the  offence  of  misrepresentation,  in  "A  Question  Touch- 
ing the  Augsburg  Confession."  The  Lutheran,  April  25,  in  "A 
Slight  Question  in  Reformation  History,"  takes  ground  against 
Dr.  Brown,  and  with  us,  in  the  assertion  of  a  second  sending  ;   and 


'  "  What  we  stated,"  says  Dr.  Conrad,  in  a  note  to  us,  "and  what  Dr.  Brown 
challenj^ed  at  the  Diet,  was  this:  'It  (the  Confession)  was  submitted  to  him 
(Luther)  in  its  first  completed  draft,  in  its  second  improved  form,  as  well  as 
immediately  after  its  delivery,  and  received  his  unqualified  approval.'  " 


1877-78.]  DR.  brown's  question.  63 

takes  ground  with  Dr.  Brown,  and  against  us,  in  our  assertion  of  a 
third  sending. 

IV.    "A   QUESTION   TOUCHING   THE   AUGSBURG   CONFESSION." 

The  "Question  touching  the  Augsburg  Confession,"  with  which 
Dr.  Brown  opens  the  April  number  of  his  Quarterly,  has  some  char- 
acteristics which  might  fairly  raise  a  question  touching  Dr.  Brown 
himself.  He  gives  an  editorial  explanation  on  the  second  page  of 
his  cover,  which  shows  that  he  might  more  profitably  have  consid- 
ered the  question  of  the  moral  honor  of  a  man,  who  having  "occa- 
sion," in  strict  confidence  to  see  a  proof  of  a  forthcoming  book, 
avails  himself  of  it  to  write  something  which  is  to  appear  as  if  it 
were  the  review  of  the  book  written  after  its  publication.  In  the 
Providence  which  loves  to  thwart  guilty  cunning,  the  scheme  was 
exposed.  The  review  of  Dr.  Brown  appeared  before  the  book  it 
pretended  to  review.  When  the  book,  already  printed  though  not 
published  when  Dr.  Brown's  article  appeared,  came  out,  all  who 
opened  it  found  that  in  the  very  assumption  about  its  contents,  of 
which  Dr.  Brown  had  made  most  in  his  article,  his  statement  about  us 
was  untruthful,  and  that  we  repudiated  the  date  which  it  was  essential 
to  his  theory  to  have  us  maintain.  The  erratum,  June  3d  for  July 
3d,  was  made  in  our  article  in  the  Luthe?-an,  1867.  The  article  it- 
self was  reprinted  and  the  error  crept  in  with  it,  in  our  Introduction 
to  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  into  the  Conservative  Reforma- 
tion.-' The  vouchers  we  give  for  the  citation  show  any  one  who 
verifies  them  the  right  date  :  the  quotation  is  repeated^  with  the  cor- 
rect date,  and  the  same  vouchers  are  used,  with  the  addition  of  Coel- 
estinus.  If  Dr.  Brown,  who  is  so  compassionate  to  "any  one  who 
is  not  very  careful,"  had  taken  a  little  notice,  he  would  have  seen 
that  all  the  citations  from  p.  232  to  237  in  the  Conservative  Refor- 
mation are  chronologically  arranged,  and  that  the  date  must  have 
been  written  July  3d.  He  would  have  seen  in  the  three  lines  which 
precede  it,  that  our  inference  and  our  theory  are  "  that  between 
June  8th  and  25th,  we  have  Melanchthon's  declaration,  cited  in  our 
former  extracts,  as  to  Luther's  approval  of  the  Confession  in  the 
form  it  took  after  the  discussion."  If  he  thinks  us  wicked  enough 
to  alter  a  date,  as  he  pretends  he  does,  and  fools  enough  to  add  to 
the  altered  date  the  vouchers  which  at  once  stamp  it  as  a  forgery, 

■'  P.  234. 

"  Conserv.  Kefoniiat.,  p.  239,  iIitl-c  lines  from  the  bottom  of  the  text. 


64  CHKON'OLOGY.  [1877-78. 

he  will  yet  hardly  be  able  to  imagine  that  we  would  flilsify  the  date 
in  such  a  way  as  to  confute  the  very  theory  for  which  it  was  altered, 
and  that  just  under  a  repetition  of  our  theory,  we  would  put  a  falsi- 
fied date  which  would  overthrow  it.  When  Dr.  Conrad  was  misled 
by  it,  he  was  compelled  to  form  another  theory,  utterly  out  of  har- 
mony with  our  conclusions  and  our  argument.  He  did  not  look  at 
our  citation  in  its  connection,  and  did  not  have  Buddeus,  or  De 
Wette's  edition  of  Luther's  letters,  and  so  was  misled.  Dr.  Conrad 
had  verified  our  vouchers  when  he  possessed  the  books  to  which  we 
refer,  and  the  honest  care  with  which  he  found  they  were  made, 
helped  him  to  be  less  on  his  guard  against  that  unsuspected  rock,  a 
typographical  erratum.  No  wonder  that,  to  create  a  fictitious  im- 
portance for  the  small  business  which  he  has  undertaken.  Dr. 
Brown  prints  in  small  caps,  "  .-vs  they  pretend,"  talks  of  "  ludi- 
crous error,"  "pet  theory,"  "fictitious  date,"  inconsistently  swing- 
ing apparently  between  the  theories  that  we  are  cunning  impos- 
tors and  helpless  ignoramuses,  brazen  forgers,  and  idiotical  dupes. 

Dr.  Brown  writes  habitually  in  a  vein  which  excludes  him  from  all 
right  to  courtesy.  Years  ago  we  discovered  that  to  an  obstinacy  which 
declined  to  learn  and  an  ignorance  which  made  him  incapable  of 
teaching,  he  added  a  dishonesty  in  citation  and  a  coarseness  of  im- 
putation which  deprived  him  of  all  right  to  notice  ;  and  we  ceased 
to  notice  him.  We  hoped  that  the  Diet  would  mark  the  beginning 
of  a  new  era  with  him  ;  but  his  review  shows  that  he  is  beyond 
change.  If  he  thought  that  the  crime  of  being  a  member  of  an 
ecclesiastical  body,  which  he  helped  to  drive  from  the  one  of  which 
he  is  a  special  incubus,  absolved  him  from  the  duty  of  decency  to 
ourselves,  he  might  at  least  have  treated  with  the  ordinary  courtesy 
which  one  who  claims  to  be  a  gentleman  extends  to  another,  Dr. 
Conrad,  who  has  long  been  one  of  ihe  greatest  powers  in  the  General 
Synod,  and  who  has  done  as  much  to  build  up  the  Seminary  which 
feeds  Dr.  Brown  as  Dr.  Brown  has  done  to  pull  it  down.  We  will  give 
Dr.  Brown  the  benefit  of  our  largest  charity.  We  will  try  to  believe 
that  his  malignity  to  us  is  such  that  he  may  really  imagine  he  is  sin- 
cere in  the  theory  of  our  baseness  ;  but  when  lie  pretends  that  he 
thinks  Dr.  Conrad  a  conspirator  with  us,  knowingly  altering  a  date 
and  thus  trying  to  make  a  lie  plausible,  he  deliberately  writes  what 
he  knows  to  be  untrue. 

Dr.   Brown   as    a    Translator. — Dr.    I^rown's    bitterest   enemy 


1877-78.]  i)K.  brown's  question.  65 

must  allow  that  he  has  tenacity  of  purpose.  He  has  such  strength 
of  will  that,  if  it  were  properly  guided  and  maintained  by  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  subjects  on  which  he  writes,  he  might  attain  a  reputation 
of  his  own,  instead  of  spending  his  life  in  trying  to  destroy  the  rep- 
utation of  others.  From  his  attack  on  Dr.  Schmucker  to  the  present, 
his  main  work  has  been  of  one  kind.  He  has  produced  no  apoth- 
ecaries' ointment  of  his  own,  but  has  been  putting  dead  flies  into 
the  ointment  of  others.  His  tenacity  has  accomplished  little, 
because  it  is  his  fixed  determination  to  show  strength  where  he  has 
no  strength  to  show.  A  good  strategist  will  throw  his  strength 
against  the  weakness  of  the  foe.  Dr.  Brown's  strategy  is  character- 
istically a  throwing  of  his  weakness  against  the  strength  of  the  foe. 
He  has  endeavored  to  confute  specialists  in  their  department,  from 
the  stores  of  his  general  knowledge.  Dogmaticians  he  takes  up  in 
dogmatics,  metaphysicians  in  metaphysics;  and  the  fact  that  Me- 
lanchthon  is  generally  conceded  to  have  known  something  about  the 
Augsburg  Confession  will  diiliinish  the  surprise  of  those  who  know 
Dr.  Brown,  that  he  has  written  an  article  which  purposes  to  rectify 
Melanchthon's  statements  in  regard  to  that  document.  He  has 
particularly  seemed  ambitious  to  shine  as  a  translator — not  by 
translating  indeed,  but  by  examining  the  errors  of  others  in  trans- 
lating— and  what  a  master  he  has  shown  himself!  His  rendering 
"  beg  lessen  "  to  "immerse"  showed  his  unrivaled  familiarity  with 
German;  his  translating  "  Exhibeantur,"  in  the  Tenth  Article  of 
the  Variata,  by  "represented"'  shows  how  deeply  he  has  entered 
into  theological  Latin.  Dr.  Brown  does  not  seem  to  know  that  be- 
sides the  dictionary,  to  understand  a  language,  the  translator  needs 
a  sufficient  previous  knowledge  to  understand  the  dictionary. 

In  that  important  passage  in  Melanchthon's  last  testimony  in  re- 
gard to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  which  we  have  already  enlarged 
upon,  Dr.  Brown  finds  a  number  of  faults  in  our  translation.  Had 
Dr.  Brown  really  pointed  out  errors  in  our  translation,  we  should 
have  been  grateful  to  him ;  and  even  if  it  had  been  done  in  the 
ungracious  way  in  which  he  does  everything,  the  value  of  the  ser- 
vice would  have  been  a  compensation  for  the  unpleasantness  ot 
the  manner.  "  Fas  est.''  Nor  would  we -feel  a  morbid  excess  of 
humiliation  at  the  detection  of  the  class  of  errors  to  which  we  are 
sure  our  shortcomings  are  confined — the  errors  of  limited   knowl- 

*Bibliotheca  Sacra.,  July,  1868,  p.  485. 

5 


66  CHRONOLOGY.  [1877-78. 

edge  and  of  unconscious  oversight.  We  have  carefully  and  con- 
scientiously endeavored  in  every  case  to  give  the  true  sense  of 
what  we  have  translated.  We  have  fallen  into  the  errors  of  the 
translator,  but  we  know  that  we  have  not  been  guilty  of  his  delib- 
erate sins.  As  the  result  of  no  inconsiderable  amount  of  expe- 
rience in  translation,  we  feel  with  increased  force  how  easy  it  is  to 
make  mistakes  even  in  very  simple  things.  Mental  preoccupation, 
temporary  languor  from  overstrained  attention,  or  loss  of  rest,  de- 
fect of  sight,  unnoted  differences  in  words  closely  alike  or  even 
identical  in  form,  and  other  causes  of  a  similar  nature,  account  for 
the  familiar  fact  that  great  scholars  have  made  mistakes  of  which 
they  were  heartily  ashamed,  mi.^takes  which  an  intelligent  school- 
boy, put  upon  his  guard,  could  not  make,  and  with  his  attention 
quickened,  would  at  once  detect.  A  book  could  be  made  of  the 
mistakes  in  grammar  into  which  great  grammarians  have  fallen,  of 
ignorance  of  the  meaning  of  words  on  the  part  of  great  lexicograph- 
ers, of  the  special  mistakes  of  all  sorts  of  specialists.  And  if  this 
be  true  of  great,  exhaustive  scholarship,  it  does  not  require  much 
humility  to  acknowledge  general  fallibility,  and  particular  mistake.'^ 
in  the  attempts  at  translation  which  have  come  out  of  a  crowded 
life  of  active  toil  and  constant  care.  We  would  prefer  that  those 
who  have  done  something  themselves  should  give  us  light,  but  we 
are  willing  to  take  it  from  any  one,  even  an  enemy.  We  decline 
Dr.  Brown's  teaching,  not  that  we  do  not  need  to  be  taught,  nor 
because  we  would.be  unwilling  that  he  should  teach  us,  but  because 
he  is  incapable  of  teaching  because  he  is  unwilling  to  learn.  We 
take  nothing  from  him,  simply  because  he  has  nothing  to  give. 

Of  our  conscientious  care  and  general  success  in  the  unbroken 
paths  in  which  we  have  walked  and  worked  unaided,  we  have  not 
only  the  direct  testimony  of  men  whose  opinions  ought  to  have 
weight,  but  we  have  strong  testimony  in  the  very  nature  of  the  at- 
tacks made  upon  us.  If  all  these  attacks  were  successful  to  the 
very  fullest  measure  of  their  purpose,  they  would  leave  the  body  of 
our  work  untouched.  They  unsettle  nothing  we  have  tried  to  settle, 
and  in  attacking  little  they  acknowledge  much.  Dr.  Bro\Vn  would 
find  a  sympathetic  co-worker  in  an  anonymous,  scurrilous  Romish 
writer,  who,  showing  in  the  animus  of  his  attack  that  he  would  gladly 
do  us  the  greatest  amount  of  damage  possible,  points  out  mistakes 
in    a  single   sentence   of   our  reproduction  of   that  very  tangled 


1877-78.]  DR.  p.rown's  question.  67 

piece  of  composition,  Chancellor  Briick's  Preface  to  the  Augsburg 
Confession  !  The  mistakes  were  the  results  of  inadvertence,  not  of 
ignorance;  it  required  no  learning  to  detect  them;  we  had  noted 
and  requested  the  correction  of  them  totally  apart  from  the  Rom- 
ish Review.  The  critic,  in  the  effort  to  correct,  makes  at  least  one. 
blunder  more  palpable  than  any  he  points  out.  But  waiving  all 
that,  the  assailant  is  witness  for  us.  In  making  so  much  of  the  dis- 
covery of  this  little,  he  hardly  seems  to  realize  how  much  he  con- 
cedes in  finding  no  more.  The  venom  of  the  serpent  is  too  much 
for  his  cunning. 

In  assailing  our  translation.  Dr.  Brown  has  seen  fit  to  drag  Dr. 
Jacobs  in,  partly  for  the  crime  of  endorsing  our  accuracy,  but  still 
more  for  the  crime  of  having  a  distinguished  reputation  as  a  Latin 
scholar.  This  makes  it  essential  to  Dr.  Brown's  happiness  that  he 
shall  prove  that  he  can  teach  Prof.  Jacobs  Latin ;  for  Dr.  Brown 
seems  to  be  pervaded  with  the  conviction  that  no  man  can  hold  a 
high  place  in  anything  without  stealing  it  from  him.  He  claims  all 
the  parts,  from  the  lover  to  the  lion.  Hence,  with  indomitable  self- 
reliance  and  ardor,  armed  only  with  a  school  dictionary  and  a 
Quackenbos,  he  goes  forth  in  deadly  resolve  against  those  who, 
without  knowing  it  or  meaning  it,  are  invading  his  universal  king- 
dom. Dr.  Jacobs's  masterly  reply  to  Dr.  Brown  on  the  questions  of 
Latinity  involved,  makes  it  unnecessary  for  us  to  do  more  than 
barely  touch  on  them,  so  far  as  to  give  internal  completeness  to  our 
notice. 

I .  "  De  Singulis  Senfentiis. ' ' 
"It  is  by  no  means (:<?/-Ai'/«  that  'de  singulis sententiis'  means  'sen- 
tence by  sentence.'  "  In  saying  that  it  is  by  no  means  certain.  Dr. 
Brown  admits  that  it  is  possible,  if  not  probable.  He  confesses 
that  he  does  not  know  what  it  means.  ''It  may  mean,  and  prod- 
ai/y  does  mean,  concerning  each  opinion,  or  subject,  or  point." 
That  is  Dr.  Brown's  common  mode  of  avoiding  responsibility,  and 
his  quiet  little  way  of  saying  that  Melanchthon  did  not  know  how 
to  write  Latin ;  for  of  course  the  difficulty  is  not  in  Dr.  Brown's 
ignorance — it  must  therefore  be  in  Melanchthon's  Latin.  Yet,  per- 
haps, in  spite  of  Dr.  Brown's  perplexity,  we  may  reach  some  sense 
in  it.  If  each  opinion,  or  subject,  or  point  had  to  be  discussed, 
would  not  a  taking  up  sentence  by  sentence  be  implied,  even  if  it 
were  not  expressed  ? 


68  CHRONOLOGY.  [1877-78. 

The  rendering  we  gave,  as  in  accordance  with  the  relation  of  the 
phrase,  the  pure  Latinity  of  ^^lelanchthon,  supported  by  the  formula 
of  Cicero,  is  sustained  in  its  philological  aspect  by  Dr.  Jacobs, 
and  in  its  historical  probability  in  our  discussion  of  Melanchthon's 
own  words,  under  1559,  1560. 

2 .   "  Disputatum  est. ' ' 

2.  Dr.  Brown's  next  point  is  on  the  "disputatum  est,"  and  here 
Dr.  Brown  makes  himself  ridiculous,  by  parading,  with  school-boy 
pedantry,  the  familiar  piece  of  grammar,  that  the  "verb  is  imper- 
sonal," "  there  was  discussion;"  /.  <?.,  as  we  understand  Dr.  Brown, 
"there  was  discussion  in  order  on  each  opinion  or  point"  of  the 
Confession ;  but  we  must  not  say  that  it  (the  Confession)  was  dis- 
cussed. Dr.  Brown's  idea  of  translation,  as  embodied  in  this  sage 
critique,  seems  to  be  derived  from  the  interlinear  for  lazy  dunces, 
which  gives  them  word  for  word,  without  reference  to  idiom,  not 
thought  for  thought.  When  to  this  theory  we  have  conjoined  ig- 
norance of  the  words,  we  have  Dr.  Brown's  ideal,  as  exemplified  in 
his  practice. 

3.   ^'  Determified  ifpofiy 

3.  Dr.  Brown  is  at  a  loss  to  conjecture  "where  this  'and  deter- 
mined upon  '  comes  from,''''  probably  meaning  by  "  where — from," 
what  writers  of  English  usually  express  by  the  word  "whence." 
It  is  involved  in  the  "  disputatum  est,"  in  the  position  which 
Melanchthon  gives  it  in  his  argument.  Mere  discussion,  without 
determination,  would  not  prove  or  involve  the  point  he  is  making, 
which  is  that  the  Confession  was  so  discussed,  that  the  princes  and 
other  officials  who  signed  it  were  responsible  for  it.  They  weighed 
it,  in  order  to  determine  whether  it  would  pass.  The  "  disputatum 
est"  covers  therefore  a  decisive  and  determinative  discussion,  as 
it  often  does  in  Latni  usage. 

4 .   "  Tot  a  forma . ' ' 

4.  Dr.  Brown  next  objects  to  the  translation  of  "  tota  forma." 
Dr.  Brown  insists  that  "tota'-'  does  not  mean  "complete;"  "it  re- 
fers to  entirety.''''  It  does  not  mean  "finished,''  it  refers  to  "total- 
ity," "  /<?Az  expresses  the  whole."  We  say  it  was  complete  ;  Dr. 
Brown  says  it  was  not  complete,  it  was  only  entire.  We  say  it  was 
"  finished  ;"  Dr.  Brown  says  it  was  not  finished,  it  was  only  total, 
the  whole  of  it  was  there. 


1877-78.]  T)R.  brown's  question,  69 

Now,  words  are  used  relatively  as  well  as  absolutely,  and  the 
precise  force  they  bear  relatively  is  determined  by  the  whole  context, 
and  the  nature  of  that  to  which  they  are  opposed.  If  "finished" 
means  absolutely  closed  against  all  change,  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, as  we  no7u  have  it,  was  not  only  not  "finished"  May  11,  but 
was  not  finished  when  the  presentation  was  made  June  25th  ;  for 
there  are  differences  in  stylistic  minutenesses  between  the  Confession 
as  delivered,  and  the  Editio  Princeps  of  Melanchthon.  Tota  is 
determined  as  to  its  particular  force  by  that  to  which  it  is  antitheti- 
cal. If  I  say  it  was  unfinished  yesterday,  it  is  whole  to-day,  the 
.whole  implies  that  it  is  finished. 

THE   QUESTIONS    OF    CHRONOLOGY    AND    HISTORY. 

I .   The  Suite  of  the  Elector. 

The  vital  point  in  Dr.  Brown's  argument,  the  only  one  which 
looks  as  if  it  would  have  weight  if  established,  is  "that  the  suite 
of  the  Elector  included  a  majority  of  the  Princes  who  actually 
signed  the  Confession."  Not  satisfied  with  this,  but  feeling  secure 
in  his  point,  he  waxes  sarcastic,  insinuates  that  we  had  something  to 
gain,  so  important  that  it  led  us  to  suppress  a  truth  :  "The  '■suite' 
of  the  Elector,  mentioned  with  this  indifferent  air,  and  shut  up  in  a 
parenthesis,  actually  contained  a  majority  of  the  Princes  who  signed 
the  Confession.''     The  Italics  are  his  own. 

Now  if  this  were  literally  true,  it  would  avail  Dr.  Brown  nothing, 
for  Melanchthon  distinctly  asserts  that  those  of  whom  he  speaks  are 
^'  the  Princes  and  officials  whose  nxmcs  are  attached  to  the  Confes- 
sion,"^ or  as  it  is  in  the  German,  "  the  Elector,  and  Princes  and 
cities,""  and  again,  "the  Elector,  and  Princes,  and  Legates  who 
subscribed  this  Confession."'  What  Dr.  Brown  has  to  prove  is  not 
that  a  majority  of  the  Princes  who  signed,  were  at  Augsburg  before 
May  nth,  but  that  the  whole  body  of  the  Princes  and  the  cities 
who  signed  were  there.  He  is  not  lacking  in  audacity,  but  he  has 
not  attempted  this.  The  Princes  who  formed  the  Elector's  suite 
were,  first,  John  Frederick,  Duke  of  Sajcony,  the  oldest  son  of  the 

^'' Principes  et  gubernatores,  quorum  nomina  ascripta  suut  Confessioni."  Cor- 
pus Doctrinse,  1562.     Prefa.  a.  2. 

*Cliur  unnd  Piirsten  und  Sledf.  Corpus  D.  C.  Das  ist  Ganze  Summa.  V'or- 
rede,  p.  i. 

'I)eu  Cliuf  uuiid  FiirstcMi,  unnd  Bottschafficn,  welclie  sich  unterschrieben 
haben."     Do.  do.,  p.  2. 


7°  CHRONOLOGY.  [1877-78. 

Elector,  and  not  until  his  father's  death  (1532)  at  the  head  of  the 
government.  The  second  in  the  suite  was  Francis,  Duke  of  Lune- 
berg,  a  youth  of  twenty-two,  the  brother  of  Duke  Ernest,  and  not 
at  the  head  of  a  government.  The  third  was  Wolfgang,  Prince  of 
Anhalt.  These  three  names  were  those  of  least  political  weight. 
They  came  last  in  the  signatures  of  the  Princes,  to  the  Latin  Con- 
fession in  the  Book  of  Concord ;  in  the  German,  in  the  Book  of 
Concord,  the  names  of  John  Frederick,  Duke  of  Saxony,  and 
Francis,  Duke  of  Luneberg,  are  not  found  at  all.  There  is  a  mass 
of  evidence  and  authority  tending  to  establish  the  fact  that  to  the 
Confession  as  read  in  the  Diet,  the  names  of  John  Frederick  and 
Francis  were  not  attached.*'  It  is  beyond  dispute  that  they  were 
late  in  signing,  and  that  their  names  are  placed  after  those  of  the 
great  reigning  Princes.  They  were  not  rulers;  they  did  not  directly 
represent  States  (Saxony  being  represented  by  the  Elector,  and 
Luneberg  by  Ernest).  But  one  Prince,  not  merely  titulary,  and  he 
one  of  the  least  important  politically,  was  present  before  May  12, 
with  the  Elector.  But  if  we  waive  all  this,  and  count  the  two  titu- 
lar Princes,  who  perhaps  did  not  sign  the  German  Confession,  we 
have  but  three,  and  three  are  not  enough  to  make  a  "  majority"  of 
six  (or  seven,  if  we  count  the  Elector  as  a  Prince),  unless,  indeed, 
Dr.  Brown's  arithmetic  be  as  lawless  as  his  philology.  For  a  man 
who  reads  lessons  to  those  "who  are  not  very  careful,"  this  is 
rather  loose  arithmetic.  Dr.  Brown  is  clearly  getting  ready  for  a 
tilt  at  some  man  of  renown  in  mathematics. 

But  there  is  another  extraordinary  piece  of  assumption  in  Dr. 
Brown's  argument.  When  he  confounds  the  Elector  and  the  three 
minor  Princes  with  the  total  body  of  the  signers — when  he  asserts 
that  three  is  more  than  the  half  of  six,  and  implies  that  three  is  the 
whole  of  eight ;  when  he  makes  three  minor  Princes,  without  Coun- 
selors and  theologians,  the  total  of  themselves,  plus  the  three  great 
Princes,  and  the  two  great  cities,  with  their  Counselors  and 
Theologians— we  might  think  this  modest  man,  who  bemoans  the 
obdurate  Dr.  Conrad's  want  of  confidence  in  his  "poor  judgment," 
had  reached  the  limits  even  of  his  amazing  style  of  logic.  But  he 
goes  beyond  this.  He  assumes  that  the  proof  of  their  presence  in 
Augsburg  is  enough  to  demonstrate  that  these  discussions  of  the 
Confession,  of  which  Melanchthon  speaks,  took  place  before  May 

*Kollner,  201-210.     Plitt ;  in  Herzog  and  Plitts,  Real  Encycl.,  i.  773. 


1877-78.]  i>K-  brown's  question.  yr 

II.  He  cites  no  evidence,  for  tliere  is  none.  He  does  not  allude 
to  the  evidence  to  the  contrary,  for  if  he  knows  anything  about  it, 
he  knows  that  it  is  overwhelming  against  him.  He  talks  of 
"NUMEROUS  Princes  and  Noblemen"  (this  is  the  way  Dr.  Brown 
prints  it)  as  present,  as  if  all  the  Princes,  small  and  great,  Romish 
as  well  as  Protestant,  were  embraced  in  Melanchthon's  words,  which 
speak  only  of  the  Princes  who  signed  the  Confession.  If  Dr. 
Brown  will  consult  the  old  annalists,  he  will  also  find  they  record 
the  number  of  horses,  a-nd  may  then,  with  consistent  bitterness, 
charge  us  with  repressing  all  allusion  whatever  to  the  presence  at 
the  Diet  of  these  noble  animals ;  for  it  is  not  more  certain  that  the 
horses  were  excluded  from  Melanchthon's  congress  of  Signers  of 
the  Confession,  than  that  the  general  body  of  numerous  Princes  and 
noblemen,  in  the  Elector's  train,  were  excluded. 

THE  SIGNING  PRINCES  AND  THE  TIME  OF  THEIR  ARRIVAL. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the  fact  so  totally  fatal  to  the  view  of 
Dr.  Brown,  and  so  indisputably  established,  is  not  even  alluded  to,  to 
wit:  that  a  majority  of  the  signers,  (Princes  and  cities)  and  among 
these  all  the  most  important  ones,  except  the  Elector  of  Saxony, 
were  not  present  in  Augsburg  until  after  May  ir,  previous  to 
which,  is  the  time  of  which,  according  to  Dr.  Brown,  Melanch- 
thon  speaks. 

May  12,  came  the  Landgrave,  Philip  of  Hesse,  third  after  the 
Elector  in  signing.  May  14,  came  Duke  Ernest  of  Luneberg, 
second  after  the  Elector.  May  24,  came  George,  Margrave  of 
Brandenberg,  first  after  the  Elector." 

These  were  the  three  great  ruling  Princes  who  stood  with  the 
Elector,  and  whom  Dr.  Brown  throws  totally  out  of  the  account. 
He  has  the  three  minor  Princes  (one  of  whom  certainly,  and  two 
others  of  whom  possibly,  signed  the  Confession)  who  being  part  of 
a  suite,  came  first,  because  the  Elector,  whose  movements  controlled 
theirs,  came  first.  He  reads  into  Melanchthon  that  a  "majority 
of  the  Princes  who  signed  were  present ;  then  leaving  out  the  officials 
of  the  cities  entirely,  nothing  is  necessary  to  insure  him  victory, 
except  to  remind  the  reader  that  three  «Va  majority  of  six  not  to  say 

*  Aiii  Kurze  Anzayguiifj,  1530,111  Cyprian  Beylagen,vi.  78.  Stiobel:  Miscel. 
II.  22.     Fikenscher,  64.     Kijllner,  173,  12.     Plitt,  in  Ilerzog,  (new  eil.)  I.  773. 


72  CHRONOLOGY.  [1877-78. 

seven.     Never  were  a  man's  mathematics  antl  his  theological  science 
in  such  absolute  keeping. 

The  Preface  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  spjaks  of  those  repre- 
sented by  it,  as  "  the  Elector  and  Princes,  whose  names  are  sub- 
scribed, together  with  those  associated  with  them,"^"  and  any  dis- 
cussion must  have  involved  the  question  whether  all  these  could 
accept  the  Document. 

THE    SIGNING  OFFICIALS    OF    THE    CITIES  AND    THE    TIME    OF    THEIR 

COMING. 

Dr.  Brown  has  been  so  dazzled  with  his  "  numerous  princes  and 
noblemen''''  that  he  has  totally  forgotten  that  Melanchthon  also  men- 
tions certain  "officials,"  "  gubernatores,"  who  in  addition  to  the 
princes,  signed  the  Confession,  and  who  were  present  at  the  discus- 
sions {praesentibtis  allis  giihernaforibus)  which  preceded  the  send- 
ing to  Luther  of  which  we  speak.  That  these  "  gubernatores" 
who  signed  were  the  representatives  of  the  two  cities  is  certain,  for 
beside  the  princes,  the  cities  alone  were  among  the  signers.  The 
German  also  enumerates  "  Elector,  princes  and  cities  (Stedt),  and 
again  "the  Elector,  princes  and  legates  (Bottschaften)  who  sub- 
scribed."    None  of  these  legates  came  till  after  May  1 1. 

May  15. — Came  Christopher  Kress  Von  Kressenstein  and  Clem- 
ens Volkamer,  the  Legates  of  Nlirnberg. 

May  21. — Came  Joachim  Weiss,  Legate  of  the  city  of  Reut- 
lingen." 

THE    COUNSELORS    PRESENT    AT    THE    DISCtTSSIONS. 

Dr.  Brown  has  also  left  out  of  account  another  element.  Me- 
lanchthon says  that  the  signers  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
"  together  with  their  Counselors''^  (neben  iren  Redten)  pon- 
dered it.  Now  of  the  princes  present  before  May  1 1  the  Elec- 
tor alone  had  counselors.  All  the  great  princes  Avho  came  from 
May  12  to  May  24  had  with  them  their  counselors:  Philip, '- 
Ernst,''*  George." 

'<*"Nos  infra  scripti  Elector  et  Principes  cum  aliis,  qui  nobis  conjuncti  sunt:" 
"Wir,  die  unter  benannter  Churfijrst  imd  Fiirsten,  sampt  unsern  Vervvandten:" 
Mulier:  S.  B.  35,  5. 

"  Saubert,  155,  163.     Rotermund,  480. 

'■■' Saubert,  128.  Coelestinus,  iv.  133,  134.         '''Do.,  125.  Coelesliuus,  iv.  132. 

'^  Do.,  113.  Coelestinus  iv.  130. 


1877-78.]  DR.  brown's  question.  73 

THE    THEOLOGIANS    PRESENT    AT    THE    DISCUSSIONS. 

But  Dr.  Brown,  floating  on  his  current  of  princes  and  noblemen, 
has  forgotten  even  the  great  men  of  his  own  profession.  Melanch- 
thon  tells  us  that  in  the  discussions  which  preceded  the  sending  of 
the  Confession  to  Luther  the  preachers  were  present  {^praesentibus 
concionatorihits)  whom  the  German  still  more  closely  defines  as 
their  preachers  (ihren  .  .  .  Predicanten),  the  preachers  of  the  princes 
and  cities  by  whom  the  Confession  was  signed. 

Among  the  theologians  thus  participant  were  the  following  : 

May  12,  with  Philip  came  Erhard  Schnepf  and  Conrad  Ottinger. 

May  14,  with  Ernest  came  Heinrich  Bock. 

May  24,  with  George  came  Adam  Candid,  John  Rurer,  and 
Martin  Moglin. 

May  27,  came  John  Brentius,  who,  starting  with  George,  had 
been  detained  three  days  on  the  route  by  sickness  ]  and  Brentius, 
next  greatest  after  Luther  and  Melanchthon  .themselves,  was  among 
the  most  active  and  important  partakers  in  the  discussion. 

MAY    22.    melanchthon' S   LETTER 

Ur.  Brown  declares  himself  "free  to  admit  that  this  letter  gives  a 
better  show  of  plausibility  to  a  second  sending  of  the  Confession,  or 
rather  a  part  of  it,  not  the  tota  forma,  to  Luther,  than  either  of  the 
other  arguments.  It  is  a  fact  which  is  not  disputed  that  Melanchthon 
did  lijrite  a  letter,  addressed  to  Luther,  and  that  the  date  assigned  is 
Mfty  2  2d.  In  that  letter  he  does  express  the  wish  that  Luther  would 
run  over  *  the  Articles  of  Faith.'  .  .  .  He  says  that  he  is  changing 
many  things  in  the  Confession"  (Apology)  "daily.  Now  it  is 
admitted  that  Melanchthon  7urote  such  a  letter  and  expressed  such  a 
desire.'^  But  Dr.  Brown  tries  to  deprive  the  truth  of  the  benefit  of 
all  this  good  confession  on  the  ground  that  "it  is  a  fact  that  there 
is  doubt  about  Luther's  ever  receiving  this  letter  written  May  2 2d." 
Dr.  Brown  argues  on  this  statement  "  that  there  is  doubt  "  in  such 
a  way  as  to  make  it  equivalent  to  there  being  doubt — reasonable 
doubt,  as  to  Luther's  having  received  it.  If  somebody's  doubting 
makes  a  thing  doubtful,  there  is  little  which  is  beyond  doubt,  from 
the  existence  of  matter  or  mind  down  to  the  capacity  of  Dr. 
Brown  to  be  honest  in  controversy.  But  as  to  its  being  doubtful 
whether  Luther  received  this  letter  of  May  2 2d — that  is  simply 
ridiculous.  It  was  never  doubted  through  the  ages  that  followed  the 
Reformation.     It  would  not  be  doubted,  even  by  Dr.  Brown,  now, 


74  CHRONOLOGY.  [1877-78. 

had  not  the  fact  stood  in  the  way  of  Riickert,  in  his  "pet  theory," 
set  forth  in  1854.  Dr.  Brown  has  adopted  the  suspicion  without 
examination.  Had  he  looked  at  the  evidence  in  the  case  he  would 
have  known  that  Luther's  reception  of  the  letter  is  not  merely  a 
matter  of  just  assumption,  but  a  matter  of  moral  demonstration.  "  In 
relation  to  the  letter  of  Melanchthon,  May  2 2d,"  says  Knaake,'' 
"  Riickert  has  fallen  into  a  singular  error.  According  to  Riickert 
this  letter  did  not  reach  Luther.  By  coniparmg  the  different  pass- 
ages in  which  Riickert  speaks  of  this  letter,  we  see  that  the  order  of 
succession  was  to  his  mind  as  follows  :  The  letter  was  put  by  Me- 
lanchthon, as  in  the  usual  manner,  into  the  office  of  the  Saxon  Elec- 
torate, that  it  might  be  carried  to  Luther  by  the  courier  (tabellarius) 
of  D.  Apell ;  but  the  Chancellor  Brtick  kept  it  back,  and  the  mes- 
senger (nuntius)  of  D.  Apell  reached  Coburg  without  it  :  Luther 
consequently  did  not  receive  the  account  of  the  Confession  written 
May  22.  It  is  unaccountable  to  us  how  Riickert  could  have  reached 
such  a  view,  unless  we  attribute  it  to  an  utterly  superficial  use  of  the 
sources.  First,  Melanchthon  had  not  at  all  designed  to  send  this 
writing  of  his  by  the  courier  (tabellarius)  of  D.  Apell ;  a  messenger 
was  already  hired  to  take  it,  when  Apell's  courier  arrived"  (at 
Augsburg)  "with  Luther's  letters"  (to  the  Elector,  in  reply  to  the 
letter  of  May  1 1,  and  Melanchthon's  of  the  same  date),  "  and  this 
messenger  was  actually  entrusted  with  it ;  Melanchthon  proposes  to 
write  again  more  at  large  by  Apell's  messenger  on  his  return.  All 
this  Melanchthon  himself  says  in  his  letter  of  May  22  to  Luther: — 
'  We  had  already  hired  a  messenger  to  go  to  you,  and  afterwards 
to  Wittenberg.  But  while  we  were  writing,  your  last  letters  were 
delivered  to  us  by  D.  Apell's  courier.  We  shall  write  more  by 
Apell's  messenger.  Meantime  do  you  give  to  this,  our  messenger, 
letters  for  your  wife,  for  he  can  bring  back  an  answer.'  To  Veit 
Dietrich  Melanchthon  writes  :  '  Arrange  to  write  to  the  wife  of  the 
Doctor  (Luther)  by  this  our  courier.  For  I  gave  him  direction  to 
wait  for  your  letters.  .  .  .  He  is  a  citizen  of  Augsburg,  and  has 
been  hired  by  us  to  go  to  Wittenberg.'  So  then  we  have  for  the 
proper  care  of  no  other  letter  so  many  grounds  as  precisely  for  the 
one  in  question.     It  must  have  been  in  Luther's  hands  as  early  as 


^^  Luther's  Antheil,  61-65. 


1877-78.] 


DR.  brown's   question. 


75 


June  I,  for  in  his  letter  to  Jacob  Probst  he  unmistakably  draws  from 
it.     For  example  : 


"  Melanchthon  writes  to  Lu- 
ther :      '  Ccesar  nondum  adest.' 

* '  Vix  ante  Pentecosten  vide- 
tur  afftitiirus. 

'■'Non  admisit  Bavaros,  oute 
ton  Georgion. 

*•  Viilt  eiiim  se  seivare  integ- 
rutn. 

"  Mercurinus  o  archigramma- 
teus,  vir  summus  et  moderatissi- 
mus,  quem  aiunt  dicere,  nolle  se 
violentis  consiliis  interesse.  Ad- 
didit  Mercurinus  hoc  quoque  : 
Wormaciae  apparuisse,  quam 
nihil  proficiant  violenta  consilia." 

"To  Melanchthon's  words  in 
his  letter  :  '  De  Frisiis,  jussit 
Princeps,  D.  Pomeranum  istic 
Saxonicae  linguae  peritum  hoiri- 
nem  idoneum  quaerere  et  mittere 
ad  Frisios.  In  hanc  sententiam 
potes  respondere.'  " 

"  We  have  yet  other  witnesses  to  call,  in  proof  that  this  letter  of 
May  22(1  reached  Luther.  First  we  will  look  at  a  passage  in 
Luther's  letter  of  June  30th  to  Spalatin,  which  is  as  follows  :  'You 
pledged  yourself  by  the  messenger  of  D.  Jonas,  that  you  would 
write  to  us  and  the  Wittenbergers  copiously,  by  D.  Apell's  mes- 
senger, so  that  we  might  expect  quantities  of  letters.'  When  that 
messenger  of  Apell's  came,  bringing  the  letter  of  Jonas  alone,  for 
Wittenberg,  and  was  asked  'Do  you  bring  no  letters?'  he  answered 
'No.'  '  How  are  the  gentleman?'  he  answered 'Well.'  The  sen- 
tence is  unfinished  :  Luther  means  to  indicate  the  messenger  of 
Jonas,  as  the  last  through  whom  he  had  received  letters  from  Augs- 
burg, before  the  beginning  of  the  long  silence.  The  messenger  of 
Jonas  here  is  no  other  than  that  very  citizen  of  Augsburg,  Civis 
Augustanus,  who  was  specially  sent  on  the  business  of  Jonas,  to 
Wittenberg,  and  who  was  to  take  Melanchthon's  letter  of  May  22 


Luther  informs  Jacob  Probst : 
Ca;sar  Lisbrugi  est/^r/*?  ad  Pen- 
tecosten concedet. 

Noliiit  eos  admittere  Duces 
Bavariae,  Dux  Georgius. 

Volens  se  integrum  in  causa 
servare. 

Et  summus  Cancellarius  Mer- 
curinus palam  dixit  se  nolle  in- 
teresse violentis  Consiliis,  quod 
vidisset  satis  IVormatiae,  quid 
rfficercnt  violenta  coiisilia. 

There  is  a  clear  allusion  to 
these  words  in  Luther's  letter  to 
to  Jacob  Probst :  Scribo  Comiti 
Frisiae  consolotarias,  ut  petis — et 
arbitror,  Comiti  a  Principe  esse 
scriptum. 


76  CHRONOLOGY.  [1877-78. 

to  Luther.  That  he  had  done  this  is  shown  by  the  first  words  of 
the  extract.  From  this  same  passage  it  follows,  and  is  confirmed 
by  Melanchthon's  letter  of  June  5,  that  the  nuntius  of  D.  Apell 
was  the  first  messenger  who  came  from  Augsburg  to  Luther,  with- 
out letters ;  but  we  have  seen  above  that  tliis  messenger  returned 
(from  Augsburg)  subsequent  to  the  2 2d  of  May;  this  letter  in  ques- 
tion must  consequently  have  been  delivered  to  Luther.  Had  not 
this  been  the  case,  it  would  furthermore  be  surprising  that  Luther 
should  have  responded  to  Melanchthon's  request,  that  he  should 
write  to  the  Landgrave  Philip  and  his  preacher  Edward  Schnepf, 
without  knowing  of  this  letter,  in  which  alone  that  request  is  made. 
This  argument,  of  course,  implies  that  the  reader  agrees  with  our 
view  that  June  20  is  the  proper  date  of  Luther's  letter  to  the  Land- 
grave. Finally  the  undoubtedly  genuine  addition  to  Luther's  let- 
ter of  June  29,  to  Melanchthon,  puts  the  matter  beyond  all  dispute, 
in  which  Luther  says,  '  I  believe  all  your  letters  were  delivered, 
which  you  sent  by  Dr.  Jonas's  messenger.  Hence  also  you  may 
know  that  I  have  the  picture  of  Vienna.''  The  last  words  find  their 
explanations  in  the  passage  in  the  letter  of  May  22:  'I  send  you  a 
picture  of  Vienna  besieged,'  and  their  relation  to  the  first  words 
shows  that  Luther  had  received  the  letter  and  the  picture." 

This  is  not  argument — it  is  demonstration.  It  is  as  certain  that 
Luther  received  the  letter  of  May  22,  as  that  Melanchthon  wrote  it. 
When  Dr.  Brown  says,  "We  can  present  the  very  same  or  similar 
coincidences  in  other  letters  written  from  Augsburg,  to  other  per- 
sons, about  the  same  time,"  he  shows  a  complete  ignorance  of 
what  his  pretence  involves.  He  made  it  at  random — but  we  do  not 
believe  that  even  he  would  have  had  the  hardihood  to  make  it,  if 
he  had  clearly  known  the  complete  ignorance  and  effrontery  it 
involves. 

THE   LETTERS    OF    MAY    II    AND    15. 

Dr.  Brown's  theory  is,  that  the  Elector's  letter  of  May  ii  went 
with  the  Confession,  which  was  sent  after  the  discussion,  in  which 
all  the  Estates  participated,  and  that  Luther's  reply  of  May  15,  to 
the  Elector,  is  the  approval  to  the  Princes  of  which  Melanchthon 
speaks,  1560.  But  in  these  two  letters  is  the  absolute  confutation 
of  the  theory  with  which  he  links  them. 

i.  If  it  is  to  them  Melanchthon  alludes,  it  is  inconceivable  that  he 
does  not  give  a  reference  to  them.     They  were  published  both  in  the 


1877-78.]  DR.  brown's  question.  77 

Jena  and  Wittenberg  editions  of  Luther's  works,  three  years  before. 
Why  sliould  Melanchthon  appeal  to  the  personal  recollection  of 
Princes,  and  other  men  of  position  yet  living,  if  the  very  documents 
themselves  were  in  the  hands  of  men  ?  It  is  as  absurd  as  if  in  1806, 
Thomas  Jefferson  had  asserted,  that  thirty  years  before,  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  had  been  approved  by  Congress,  and  instead 
of  referring  to  the  documentary  proof,  had  appealed  to  the  personal 
recollection  of  those  present  at  its  adoption.  Such  appeals  are 
made  only  in  matters  of  secret,  unknown  or  disputed  history.  But 
Luther's  correspondence  with  the  Elector  was  well  known,  and 
beyond  dispute. 

ii.  If  Melanchthon's  aj^peal  had  reference  to  these  two  letters, the 
result  would  have  been  fatally  against  him,  for  they  bear  internal 
evidence  against  every  distinctive  point  he  made  in  1560.  They 
show  conclusively  that  the  Confession  was  still  Saxon  in  its  rela- 
tions, that  neither  Princes,  officials,  counselors,  or  preachers  had 
touched  it  at  Augsburg  ;  that  as  to  its  composition  it  was  recognized 
as  Melanchthon's,  and  as  to  its  whole  responsibility  it  was  confined 
to  him,  to  the  Elector,  and  Luther  ;  that  the  letter  w^as  not  from  the 
Princes,  signing  or  unsigning  ;  that  Luther's  reply  was  neither  in 
form,  nor  virtually  to  any  other  than  the  Elector.  In  fact,  the 
letters  as  they  stand  are  in  themselves  sufficient  to  overthrow  Dr. 
Brown,  if  there  were  nothing  else.  We  would  be  safe  in  commit- 
ting the  whole  question  to  the  testimony  of  what  he  claims  as  his 
own  witnesses.  We  ask  the  reader  to  compare  what  Melanchthon 
says,  with  the  two  letters,  to  decide  whether  it  is  possible  to  refer 
the  words  of  1560  to  the  letters  of  May  11  and  15,  1530. 

DR.  brown's  summary  OF  WHAT  HE  SUPPOSES  HIMSELF  TO  HAVE  DONE. 

I.  "Of  the  proofs  offered  by  Drs.  Conrad  and  Krauth,  the  first 
is  based  on  a  letter  with  a  false  date."  This  letter,  whether  with 
the  typographical  erratum,""'  or  without  it,'"  was  never  offered  by  us 
in  proof  of  anything  occurring,  or  supposed  to  occur,"  previous  to 
July  3d.  The  erroneous  date  not  only  does  not  support  our  argu- 
ment for  the  third  sending,  but  is  in  direct  conflict  with  it. 

Dr.  Conrad  did  not  use  the  erroneous  date  before  the  Diet,  nor 
did  Dr.  Brown  challenge  it,  nor  did  we  undertake  to  defend  it.  Dr. 
Brown,  in  that  elaborate  review  of  seven  years  ago,  to  which  he  al- 


'*Conservat.  Reformat.,  234.  "Do.,  235. 


78  CHRONOLOGY.  [1877-78. 

ludes,  did  not  notice  the  erratum,  as  one  who  does  not  analyze  care- 
fully his  jumbled  and  prevaricating  statement  might  imagine  he  did ; 
he  knew  nothing  of  it  at  the  time  he  so  meekly  offered  his  "  poor 
judgment"  to  Dr.  Conrad.  Dr.  Conrad  in  his  revision  of  his  Arti- 
cle was  misled  by  the  erratum,  modified  his  view  in  consequence  of 
it,  and  to  this  innocent  mistake  of  his,  Dr.  Brown  is  indebted  for 
his  knowledge  of  the  erratum  now.  The  correction  of  the  erratum 
strengthens  our  theory  and  argument;  it  really  strengthens  Dr. 
Conrad's  theory  of  a  third  sending,  by  helping  it  to  the  true  basis, 
in  a  case  in  which  a  printer's  error  had  to  him  put  it  on  a  false  one. 
2.  "The  second  depends  on  the  denial  of  a  plain  fact."  One 
part  of  this  "plain  fact,"  on  which  Dr.  Brown  rests  this  statement, 
is  that  two  titular  princes,  and  Wolfgang  of  Anhalt,  were  in  the 
suite  of  the  Elector  John,  and  with  him  in  Augsburg  before  May 
II.  That  is  a  plain  fact,  which  Dr.  Brown  states  in  words  which 
he  derived  from  an  old  article  of  ours  in  the  Evangelical  Review, 
whose  historical  part  was  based  on  Walch.'*  Furthermore,  as  a  part 
of  this  plain  fact,  he  quotes  from  the  same  source — our  translation 
of  Walch — that  there  were  counts,  barons,  and  other  nobles,  theo- 
logians, Spalatin,  Jonas,  Melanchthon,  in  the  Elector's  suite.  But 
this  plain  fact,  to  which  Dr.  Brown  lends  all  the  logic  which  is  in- 
volved, in  italics  and  small  caps,  is  one  which  we  do  not  deny, 
and  whose  denial  would  be  of  no  value  in  our  argument.  For  the 
plain  fact  derives  all  the  force  which  Dr.  Brown  would  give  it,  from 
a  number  of  fictions  and  blunders  with  which  he  invests  it.  Among 
these  fictions  and  blunders  are  the  following  : 

a.  That  the  princes  present  before  May  1 1 ,  correspond  with 
the  praesentibus  principibiis  of  whom  Melanchthon  speaks.  These 
princes  he  carefully  defines  as  "the  princes  whose  w^wt'X  folloiu 
the  Confession."  The  only  one  of  the  great  princes  present  before 
May  1 1  was  the  Elector.  It  is  the  more  generally  received  view 
that  the  two  titular  princes  did  not  sign  before  the  delivery.  Wolf- 
gang of  Anhalt  was  of  little  political  importance,  and  is  the  last 
prince  signing.  George  of  Brandenburg,  next  to  the  Elector  polit- 
ically, was  not  there.  Ernest,  Duke  of  Luneburg,  was  not  there ; 
Philip,  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  was  not  there — the  Elector  alone,  of 
the  great  princes,  was  there.  If  Dr.  Brown  thinks  we  make  little  of 
the  Elector's  suite,  what  will  he  say  to  Melanchthon,  who  so  com- 

"^^ Evangelical  Rev.  .^  October,  1849,  249. 


1877-78. J  DR.  brown's  question.  79 

pletely  ignores  it  that  he  writes  more  than  once,  "  Our  prince  is  the 
only  one  present."  Yet  Dr.  Brown  thinks  so  much  of  his  princes 
that  he  insists  that  three  of  them  make  more  than  the  lialf  of  six  or 
seven— "a  majority." 

b.  Another  fiction  and  l)hinder  is  that  there  was  any  one  what- 
ever before  May  11,  correspondent  with  the  "■  aliis  gubernatori- 
bus  praesentibiis,''  the  other  officials  (other  than  the  princes)  of 
whom  Melanchthon  speaks.  For  these  also  are  the  gubernatores 
(other  than  the  princes)  "  whose  names  follow  the  Confession;" 
"  the  cities,"  as  the  German  has  it  one  place  ;  "the  legates,"  as  it 
has  it  at  another.  These  gubernatores.  officials,  cities,  legates,  were 
the  senate  and  cities  of  Niirnberg  and  Reutlingen,  and  none  of  these 
were  present  before  May  1 1 . 

c.  Another  fiction  and  blunder  is  that  the  theologians  present 
before  May  11,  correspond  with  the  "  Concionatoribus  praesenti- 
bus,"  the  preachers  present,  of  whom  Melanchthon  speaks.  "  The 
Elector  and  princes  and  legates,  who  subscribed  the  Confession,  to- 
gether with  their  preachers,  who  were  present,"  as  the  German  has  it. 

Among  these  preachers  were  Schnepf  and  Ottinger,  who  came 
with  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  May  12  ;  Heinrich  Bock,  who  came 
with  Ernest  of  Luneberg,  May  14;  Adam  Candid,  John  Rurer, 
Martin  Moglin,  who  came  with  the  Margrave  George  of  Branden- 
burg, May  24.  Last  of  all,  and  next  to  Melanchthon  greatest  of 
all  the  divines  who  were  at  Augsburg,  came  John  Brentz,  starting 
with  George  of  Brandenburg,  but  detained  by  sickness,  and  reach- 
ing the  Diet  May  27. 

d.  With  these  preachers  in  the  discussions  of  which  Melanchthon 
speaks,  the  Counselors  of  the  Elector,  Princes  and  cities  were  as- 
sociated; "///(?/>  counselors,"  ihren  Redten,  the  German  says;  but 
of  these  bodies  of  counselors,  there  was  but  one  before  May  11, 
that  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony.  John  and  Francis,  as  titular  princes, 
and  Wolfgang,  as  himself  but  part  of  a  suite,  had  no  counselors. 

e.  Finally  on  this  point,  it  is  a  fiction  and  blunder,  that  there 
was  any  discussion  on  the  Confession,  in  the  presence  of  any  as- 
sembled princes  and  officials  and  preachers,  before  the  nth.  We 
have  the  most  direct  and  ample  evidence  that  Melanchthon  continued 
his  work  alone  and  unaided  till  the  2 2d;  and  we. know  that  all 
participation  on  the  part  of  others  at  any  time  was  subsecj^uent  to 
the  2 2d. 


8o  CHRONOLOGY.  [1877-78. 

iii.  Dr.  Brown  continues  :  "And  a  mistranslation  of  Melanchthon's 
Latin."  We  think  that  our  readers,  who  will  look  at  the  masterly 
discussion  of  the  question  of  Latinity,  which  we  owe  to  the  pen 
of  Dr.  Jacobs,  will  be  satisfied  that  Melanchthon's  Latin  has  not 
been  mistranslated — by  us.  But  if  every  change  suggested  by  Dr. 
Brown  were  accepted  as  valid,  and  everything  thrown  out  which 
he  confesses  himself  unable  to  translate,  it  would  in  no  respect 
weaken  our  proof,  or  strengthen  his  denial.  Let  us  with  Dr. 
Brown  say  that  "  there  was  discussion  "  on  it,  and  not  that  it  "was 
discussed;"  that  the  discussion  was  "in  order  on  or  concerning 
each  opinion  or  subject  or  point,"  and  not  on  the  sentences  in 
which  "each  opinion  or  subject  or  point"  was  asserted.  Let  it  be 
granted  that  the  thing  sent  was  not  the  "  complete  or  finished  form," 
but  only  the  "entirety  or  totality  of  the  document."  Still  Dr. 
Brown  has  not  denied  that  it  is  a  correct  translation,  that  this  "en- 
tirety or  totality,''  is  styled  "  the  Confession  which  is  extant," 
"  this  Confession  which  was  read  before  the  Emperor."  He  has 
not  denied  that  the  translation  is  correct,  that  it  is  "  the  princes 
and  officials,  the  Elector,  and  princes,  and  legates,  whose  names 
follow  the  Confession,"  who  are  spoken  of.  He  has  overthrown 
no  translation  on  which  rests  the  proof  that  the  great  princes,  with 
one  exception,  were  not  at  Augsburg  till  after  May  1 1  ;  that  the 
legates  of  the  two  cities  were  not  there;  that  the  counselors  and 
preachers,  with  the  exception  of  those  of  Saxony,  were  not  there ; 
that  there  was  no  purpose  of  making  the  Confession  a  general  one, 
previous  to  May  1 1  ;  and  that  there  was  no  discussion  among  the 
final  signers,  their  counselors  and  preachers,  until  after  May  22. 
Dr.  Brown  has  not  denied  that  "deinde"  is  correctly  translated 
"subsequently,"  and  that  "  postea  "  means  "after  this,"  and  these 
standing,  everything  stands  for  which  we  contend  in  Melanch- 
thon's testimony,  and  Dr.  Brown's  laborious  criticisms  shed  light 
upon  nothing  whatever  except  the  weakness  of  his  Latin.  Our  ar- 
gument stands  just  as  firm  with  Dr.  Brown's  translation  as  with  our 
own.  He  has  been  trying  to  shoot  our  pickets,  but  has  never  come 
within  sight  of  our  lines. 

iv.  Finally,  of  our  proofs  Dr.  Brown  says  :  "  The  third  has  no 
solid  basis  to  support  it."  This  we  understand  to  allude  to  Me- 
lanchthon's letter  of  May  2  2d.  Dr.  Brown  denies  that  there  is  satis- 
factory proof  that  Luther  ever  received  it.    But  the  real  point  is,  did 


1877-78.]  DR.  brown's  question.  8r 

Melanchthon  send  it,  and  Dr.  Brown  admits  the  sending  -  a  second 
sending  would  establish  Melanchthon's  intent  and  desire,  even  with- 
out a  second  reception.  But  we  have  demonstrated  that  Luther 
did  receive  it.  Dr.  Brown  asserts  that  so  far  as  he  knows  there  is 
no  pretense  of  a  reply  to  it.  We  have  produced  the  letter  of  Lu- 
ther, in  which  he  does  reply  to  it.  And  yet,  Dr.  Brown  adds  that 
if  the  third  proof  had  a  solid  basis,  it  "  proves  nothing  to  the  point." 
Now,  the  point  is  that  Melanchthon  sent  the  Confession  a  second 
time.  This  fact  Dr.  Brown  admits;  the  accessory  fact  that  Luther 
received  it  we  have  demonstrated — and  this  proves  everything  to 
the  point,  and  more  indeed  than  the  point  requires.  It  disposes 
absolutely  of  Dr.  Brown's  challenge  as  he  really  made  it  in  the 
Diet.  It  sweeps  out  of  existence  Dr.  Brown's  theory  that  the  send- 
ing of  May  1 1  was  the  only  one.  He  concedes  the  second  sending, 
and  we  have  proved  the  second  reception. 

WHAT    DR.   BROWN    HAS    ACTUALLY    DONE. 

Of  the  argument  offered  by  Dr.  Brown,  the  first  part  is  the  cor- 
rection of  an  acknowledged  typographical  erratum,  an  erratum  by 
which  our  argument  had  never  been  supported,  and  by  which  it 
would  really  be  weakened.  The  second  part  of  his  argument  de- 
pends on  the  confounding  undisputed  and  totally  irrelevant  facts 
with  a  number  of  Actions  of  his  own  devising,  and  of  inexcusable 
blunders  of  his  own  making,  accompanied  by  a  set  of  bad  transla- 
tions also  of  his  own  making,  which,  however,  if  allowed,  one  and  all 
have  no  bearing  on  his  points  The  third  part  of  his  argument  is 
his  ignorant  contradiction  of  a  fact  (Luther's  reception  of  the  letter 
of  May  22)  which  is  supported  by  direct  and  demonstrative  testi- 
mony, but  apart  from  which  his  admission  of  the  sending,  is  over- 
whelming against  him  on  the  point  on  which  he  made  the  chal- 
lenge. Dr.  Brown's  article  shows  that  he  made  no  genuine  effort 
to  compensate  by  industry  for  his  want  of  vocation  to  the  work  he 
attempted.  When  he  closes  with  saying,  "  We  still  wait  for  the 
proof,"  he  must  mean  the  printer's  proof  of  his  unfortunate  article, 
for  he  gives  no  evidence  of  having  examined  any  other  sort  witii 
care,  'i'hat  printer's  proof  he  no  doubt  pondered  with  peculiar  so- 
licitude, as  nothing  is  more  annoying  than  to  be  caught  in  blunders 
while  we  are  trying  to  set  others  right.  Yet,  as  a  sad  token  of  the 
fallibility  of  men  who  are  engaged  in  exposing  failure,  Dr.  Brown 
is  compelled  to  end  his  article  with  a  codicil  of  special  "errata" 
6 


S2  CHRONOLOGY.  [1877-78. 

which  might  have  been  enlarged  to  advantage.  One  of  these  errata 
converts  Luther  into  a  woman  ;  the  other  is  in  the  name  of  that 
very  July  in  the  erratum  on  which  his  energies  had  been  mainly 
concentrated  for  seven  pages.  Total  result  of  Dr.  Brown's  labors 
and  dire  threats  for  years — the  detection  of  a  misprint,  by  which 
he  helped  the  cause  he  was  assailing ;  the  discovery  of  an  erratum, 
making  two  errata  in  the  process.  These  two  belong  to  his  little 
errata ;  his  great  erratum  is  the  article  itself,  which  is  destitute  alike 
of  scholarship  in  execution,  of  truthfulness  in  spirit,  or  of  any  suc- 
cess in  result,  general  or  particular,  great  or  small. 

V.   "A    SLIGHT    QUESTION." 

Under  the  head,  "  A  Slight  Question  in  Reformation  History," 
the  Lutheran,  of  April  25,  1878,  has  some  remarks  on  the  discus- 
sion in  the  Philadelphia  Diet,  as  to  a  second  and  third  sending  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession  to  Luther,  before  its  delivery.  The 
writer  of  the  article  concurs  with  us  in  the  belief  that  there  was  a 
second  sending,  and  so  takes  ground  against  Dr.  Brown's  real  chal- 
lenge in  the  Diet,  which  involved  only  the  second  sending.  The 
article,  however,  seems  to  sustain  Dr.  Brown  in  his  fictitious  after- 
thought, and  his  imaginary  challenge  of  a  sending  between  May  22d 
and  June  2d.  This  is  an  assertion  which  Dr.  Conrad  did  not  make 
before  the  Diet,  which  Dr.  Brown  did  not  challenge  before  the  Diet, 
and  which  we  never  made  and  never  endorsed,  but  on  the  contrary, 
have  explicitly  rejected.  Dr.  Brown  got  up  his  imaginary  challenge 
by  abusing  the  confidential  privilege  of  seeing  Dr.  Conrad's  revised 
essay  as  it  went  through  the  press,  and  then  falsifying  his  own  record 
to  adjust  it  to  his  discovery  of  a  typographical  erratum,  by  which  Dr. 
Conrad  was  misled,  and  which  Dr.  Brown  goes  on  to  treat  as  a  de- 
signed falsification,  kept  up  by  conspiracy.  We  wish  that  with  the 
slight  question  of  Chronology,  the  Lutheran  had  touched  the  very 
grave  question  of  Morality. 

Now,  we  ask  the  Lutheran  (piictly  to  look  with  us  at  the  facts 
which  are  beyond  all  dispute,  in  the  testimony  of  Melanchthon,  in 
his  words  of  1560,  and  which  we  claim  answer  the  slight  question 
in  the  very  way  in  which  we  answer  it. 

i.  The  words  clearly  state  of  whom  Melanchthon  speaks  :  "There 
were  some  who  wished  to  avoid  the  perils  of  Confession.  But 
others,  the  Princes  and  officials  whose  names  follow  the  Confession, 
judged  that  the  Confession  should  be  presented."     [Germ.  Elector 


1877-78.]  A    SLIGHT    QUESTION.  8^ 

and  Princes,  and  cities,  legates.]  '"  "  Gubernatores"  does  not  mean 
"nobles,"  as  the  Lutheran  translates  it.  It  refers  especially  to  the 
governmental  officials,  the  legates  who  represented  Niirnberg  and 
Reutlingen.  There  were  no  noblemen  except  the  Princes,  who 
signed  the  Confession.  Those  of  whom  it  speaks  were,  as  a  body, 
not  in  Augsburg  May  22. 

ii.  The  words  of  Melanchthon  clearly  state  of  juhat  Confession  it 
speaks :  It  is  the  Confession  which  is  e.vtant.  '"  It  is  no  fragment  or 
division.  It  is  the  complete  form.-'^  It  is  morally  identical  with  the 
Confession  as  delivered;  that  is,  identical  in  the  faith,  and  in  the 
substantial  of  the  form  of  expression.  We  have  never  asserted,  as 
the  Lutheran  seems  to  suppose,  that  it  was  approved  by  Luther, 
"exactly  as  it  went  before  the  Emperor."  On  the  contrary,  we 
have  said:  "This  complete  form  was  identical  inmatter  \\A\\v  X\\t 
Confession  as  exhibited,  although  verbal  changes  were  made  by 
Melanchthon  up  to  the  very  time  of  its  delivery."'--'  There  were 
changes  in  words,  none  in  things ;  literary  changes,  not  theological 
ones.  It  was  this  Confession -Mvhich  Luther  read  and  approved, 
and  this  Confession  which  was  read  before  the  Emperor. '-' 

iii.  It  is  beyond  dispute  that  Melanchthon  marks  the  ti'/ne  u<hen 
the  discussion  which  preceded  Luther's  approval  of  the  Confession 
took  place.     He  marks  it : 

a.  By  the  presence  of  the  Elector,  Princes  and  Legates  of  the 
cities  who  signed  it.  These  came  to  Augsburg  in  the  following 
order:  May  2 — i.  The  Elector;  2.  The  titulary  Prince,  John 
Frederick,  the  Elector's  son;  3.  The  titulary  Prince,  Francis;  4. 
Wolfgang  of  Anhalt  (these  three  were  in  the  suite  of  the  Elector, 
and  were  of  least  weight  politically ;  of  the  two  titulary  Princes  it 
has  long  been  doubted,  and  is  still  doubted,  whether  they  signed  the 
Confession  before  its  presentation);  5— May  12,  Philip  of  Hesse; 
6 — May  14.  Ernst  of  Luneberg  ;  7 — May  15,  Niirnberg;  S — May 
21,  Reutlingen;  9— May  24,  George,  Margrave  of  Brandenburg. 

If  the  discussions  had  begun  the  day  of  the  arrival  of  George  of 
Brandenburg,  they  would  have  begun  on  May  24.     In  regard  to 

'"Alii  vero  principes  et  gubernatores,  quorum  nomina  ascripta  sunt.  [Xierm. 
Diese  Chur  unnd  Fiirslen,  unnd  .Steclt — Chur  uiul  FiirMen,  unnd  Bottschafften, 
welche  sich  unterschrieben  haben.] 

""(^uae  extat.  -' Tola  forma.  22  Co„serv.  Rcfuimat.,  233. 

'■'Mane  Confcssionem.     '*C'iiani  Imperatore  lecta  est  haec  Confessio. 


84  CHRONOLOGY.  [1877-78. 

Philip  of  Hesse,  Melanchthon  write?  May  22  that  he  was  beginning 
to  show  a  desire  to  take  part  in  the  Saxon  Confession ;  May  17,  the 
Niirnberg  Legates  have  not  seen  the  Confession ;  May  20,  they 
have  not  seen  it;  May  22,  they  have  not  yet  seen  it,  but  it  has  come 
back  from  Luther;  May  26,  they  have  not  yet  seen  it;  May  28, 
they  have  not  seen  it.  Not  till  May  31  do  they  get  a  copy  of  the 
Latin  for  the  Niirnberg  Senate.  We  think  no  one  can  read  the 
letters  of  these  Niirnberg  "  gubernatores  "  and  continue  to  imagine 
they  took  part  in  any  discussion  of  the  Confession  before  May  22. 

b.  It  is  marked  by  the  time  of  the  coming  of  the  great  theolo- 
gians who  took  part  in  the  discussion.  The  greatest  of  these  after 
Melanchthon,  known  to  have  borne  part  in  this  discussion,  was  Bren- 
tius,  who  did  not  reach  Augsburg  till  May  27. 

c.  It  is  marked  by  the  time  when  the  Saxon  Confession  was  first 
regarded  with  reference  to  the  possibility  of  making  it  the  Confession 
of  all.  This  was  not  until  after  May  24.  The  proposition. to  make 
the  Saxon  Confession  the  Common  Confession  originated  with 
George  of  Brandenburg,  the  last  comer  of  all,  and  next  to  the  Elec- 
tor, the  greatest  of  the  Protestant  Princes. 

d.  It  is  marked  by  the  time  when  the  Confession  was  in  such  a 
state  of  completeness  that  it  could  be  made  the  basis  of  discussion. 
It  was  demonstratively  in  no  such  state  till  after  May  22,  when  Me- 
lanchthon writes  of  the  Articles  of  Faith  as  completed  unless  Luther 
has  changes  to  suggest,  but  that  the  rest  of  the  Confession  is  yet 
open  to  important  modifications. 

iv.  But  with  the  foreclosing  of  the  question  of  the  time  of  the  dis- 
cussion, the  whole  question  between  us  and  the  Lutheran  seems  to 
be  foreclosed.  For  it  cannot  be  disputed,  nor  does  the  Lutheran 
nor  Dr.  Brown  dispute,  that  Melanchthon  asserts  that  after  the 
discussion,  in  the  presence  of  the  Princes  and  other  Officials  who 
became  Signers  of  the  Confession,  it  was  sent  to  Luther.  "  J/issa 
est  t/einite"  can  mean  only  that  it  was  subsequently  sent — '■'■then 
sent,"  as  the  Lutheran  is  pleased  to  render  it,  which  does  well 
enough  as  regards  the  main  point,  but  fails  to  mark  the  emphatic 
character  of  the  "  deinde,^^  which  shows  that  Melanchthon  laid 
stress  on  the  succession  in  order  of  time.  Dr.  Brown  says  the  dis- 
cussion took  place  before  May  1 1  ;  the  Lutheran  says  it  took  place 
before  May  22;  but  both  agree  that  the  whole  form  was  prepared 
and  discussed  before  it  was  sent  to  Luther. 


1877-78. J  A    SLIGHT    QUESTION.  85 

V.  It  cannot  be  disputed  that  IMelanchthon  says  that  Luther  sig- 
nified his  approval  to  the  princes  (principibus),  who  discussed,  and 
afterwards  signed  the  Confession.  This  cannot  refer  to  Luther's 
letter  of  May  15,  for  several  reasons  :  a.  The  letter  to  which  that 
is  an  answer  was  sent  by  the  Elector  alone,  no  other  Princes  (of 
his  suite)  taking  part  in  it ;  it  was  not  the  object  of  discussion  among 
the  Princes  and  legates — the  counselors  and  theologians.  It  im- 
plies that  no  one  at  Augsburg  bad  touched  the  Confession  except 
Melanchthon.  b.  Luther's  letter  is  to  the  Elector  alone,  about 
Melanchthon's  "Apology,"  and  precludes  all  idea  of  there  having 
been  any  general  discussion  of  the  "Apology"  before  the  sending. 
c.  The  Elector's  and  Luther's  letters  had  been  published  in  both 
the  Wittenberg  and  Jena  editions  three  years  before.  They  were  in 
the  hands  of  all,  and  familiar  to  all.  Melanchthon  had  edited  the 
Ninth  Volume  of  the  Wittenberg  Edition,  in  which  the  letters  are 
contained.  Their  character  could  not  but  be  familiar  to  Melanch- 
thon, and  he,  and  all  who  read  them,  could  not  but  see  that  his 
language  could  not  apply  to  them.  The  Lutheran  itself  agrees  with 
us  here,  and  says  that  the  letter  of  May  22,  and  Luther's  of  June  i, 
"and  the  tenor  of  Melanchthon's  statements  in  the  Preface  to  his 
Corpus  Doctrinae,  strongly  warrant  the  inference  that  Luther  did 
have  the  Confession,  as  a  whole,  sent  him  subsequently  to  May  11, 
and  that  it  then  again  received  his  sanction."  For  Dr.  Brown's 
theory,  that  Melanchthon's  words  refer  to  the  one  sending  May  11, 
it  substitutes  the  theory  that  they  refer  to  Hoo  sendings.  May  11 
and  May  22,  in  which  the  Lutheran' s  \)0?i\i\<:)\\  is  weaker  than  Dr. 
Brown's,  for  the  words  can  refer  only  to  one  sending.  Me- 
lanchthon must  be  taken  as  a  valid  witness  on  the  Chronology 
throughout,  or  he  is  not  a  valid  witness  on  the  Chronology  at  all. 

vi.  Nor  can  it  be  disputed  that  Melanchthon  says  unmistakably, 
that  after  the  discussion,  and  after  the  sending  to  Luther,  and  his 
writing  of  his  approval,  in  that  order  of  succession,  it  was  read  be- 
fore the  Emperor.  Postea  lecta  est,  can  mean  nothing  but  "after 
this,"  to  wit,  this  discussion  and  the  sending,  it  was  read.  A  good 
Latinist  like  Melanchthon,  marks  as  he  does,  by  "■  deinde"  and 
"postea,''  strict  succession  in  relation  and  time:  First,  it  was  dis- 
cussed ;  second,  it  was  sent  to  Luther  ;  third,  it  was  returned  with 
his  approval ;  fourth  and  finally,  it  was  read  to  the  Emperor.  Of 
this  very  vital  and  conclusive  fact,  the  Lutheran  iloes  not  seem  to 


86  CHRONOLOGY.  [1877-78. 

have  known,  as  it  added  to  the  general  misfortune  of  quoting  sec- 
ond-hand, the  particular  misfortune  of  (juoting  after  Dr.  Brown's 
garbled  extract  — quoting  him  so  closely  as  to  retain  his  typograph- 
ical blunder  '■'■quae"  for  "qui.''''  Had  the  Lutheran  had  before  it 
the  entire  document,  it  could  hardly  have  failed  to  see  how  unten- 
able is  the  position  of  Dr.  Brown  in  which  it  has  followed  him. 
How  amply  our  position  is  sustained  by  the  general  judgment  of 
the  ages,  from  the  earliest  scholarship  of  the  Sixteenth  Century  to 
the  latest  and  ripest  of  our  own,  we  have  shown  at  large,  and  it  is 
only  necessary  here  to  refer  to  the  testimony  we  have  already  given. 
We  shall  simply  add  one  more  witness. 

Kollner,  who  on  such  a  question  as  this,  is  among  the  supreme 
authorities,  first  shows  by  overwhelming  evidence,  that  the  Elector 
stood  alone  ;  that  not  until  after  the  coming  of  the  ^Margrave  George, 
May  24,  was  the  deliberation  in  common  entered  upon.  He  then 
traces  the  processes  minutely  by  the  dates.  He  then  says  :  "In  the 
development  of  the  circumstances  as  we  have  given  them,  the  Arti- 
cles of  ^Melanchthon,  one  by  one,  were  at  a  later  period  publicly 
submitted  to  the  representatives  of  the  evangelical  party,  and  were 
every  time  not  only  most  carefully  discussed  and  pondered  by  the 
other  theologians,  but  also  by  the  civil  counselors,  nay,  by  the 
Princes  themselves,  and  were  fixed  only  after  the  most  careful 
pondering."  He  then  quotes,  in  confirmation  of  this'  statement, 
the  very  words  of  Melanchthon,  in  the  Corpus,  now  under  consider- 
ation, and  adds :  "  What  Melanchthon  says  above  does  not  hold 
good  until  after  the  time  when  the  estates  desired  the  comple- 
tion and  presentation  of  the  Confession,  in  the  name  of  them  all, 
consequently,  as  a  common  symbol -^/'^;//  about  June  8M."" 

THE  ATTEMPT  TO  MEET  THE  FACTS. 

How  does  the  Lutheran  attempt  to  meet  our  argument?  Not 
by  showing  or  attempting  to  show  that  Melanchthon's  words  can 
bear  any  other  meaning  than  that  we  have  given  them.  It  accepts 
our  premises  and  denies  our  inference. 

i.  "All  the  terms  of  this  statement  were  reasonably  fulfilled  in 
the  sendings  of  May  ii  and  May  22."  We  have  shown  on  the 
contrary,  that  not  one  of  the  terms  of  the  statement,  was  fulfilled  in 
the  sendings  of  May  nth  and  May  22d.  On  the  contrary,  the 
position  of  the  Lutheran  is  simply  impossible. 

••^Symbolik.     Erster  Theil,  176-180. 


1877-78.]  A    SLIGHT   QUESTION.      •  87 

a.  It  makes  Melanchthon  refer  to  two  sendings.  He  speaks  of 
but  one. 

b.  In  bringing  in  May  2 2d,  it  destroys  all  the  force  of  its  own 
position,  as  to  the  absence  of  corroborative  testimony ;  for  we  do 
not  possess  any  judgment  of  Luther  on  the  Confession,  as  sent  May 
2  2d.  The  silence  of  Luther  is  as  deep  on  the  second  sending,  which 
the  Lutheran  admits,  as  on  the  third,  which  it  denies  because  of 
his  silence.  But  the  case  against  the  Lutheran  is  yet  stronger.  We 
know  that  Luther  did  receive  the  letter  of  May  22d.  We  have  pro- 
duced his  answer  to  it.  The  answer  does  not  refer  to  the  Confes- 
sion at  all.  Melanchthon's  letter  of  May  2  2d  is  one  to  which  it 
would  have  been  ridiculous  for  Luther  to  reply  in  the  form  of  an 
approval  sent  to  the  Princes,  as  any  one  will  see  who  reads  it.  It 
required  an  answer  only  in  case  the  doctrinal  articles,  in  Luther's 
judgment,  required  a  change.  His  silence  was  his  answer.  Me- 
lanchthon cannot  refer  to  an  endorsement  sent  to  the  Princes,  be- 
cause of  his  letter  of  May  22.  The  Lutheran  must  either  go  forward 
to  our  theory  of  a  third  sending^  or  fall  back  on  Dr.  Brown's  that 
there  was  but  one.    A  moment's  reflection  will  make  this  very  clear. 

Either  Melanchthon's  words,  "he  wrote  to  the  princes,"  refer 
to  Luther's  letter  of  May  15,  or  they  do  not.  If  they  do,  then  they 
do  not  refer  to  a  letter  written  after  May  22.  If  they  do  not  refer  to 
the  letter  of  May  15,  the  Lutheran  has  nothing  whatever  on  the 
record  to  show  any  reply  of  Luther's  corresponding  with  Melanch- 
thon's words  of  1560.  Dr.  Brown  has  the  letter  of  May  15,  by 
which  he  can  establish  his  theory  at  once  by  simply  showing  that 
Melanchthon  did  not  know  what  he  was  writing  about.  But  the 
Lutheran  has  nothing  whatever  by  which  to  hold.  Dr.  Brown  takes 
valiantly  hold  of  one  plank  out  of  the  wreck;  the  Lutheran,  trying  to 
grasp  two  planks,  sinks  between  them.  If  it  be  shown  that  Melanch- 
thon blundered  in  every  particular,  and  is  unreliable  from  begin- 
ning to  end,  we  take  Dr.  Brown's  theory  as  the  plausible  one ;  but 
if  Melanchthon  did  not  blunder,  Dr.  Brown  and  the  Lutheran  are 
alike  mistaken  in  general,  but  the  Lutheran  is  more  mistaken  than 
Dr.  Brown,  in  particular.  If  the  words  of  1560  prove  any  sending, 
they  prove  a  sending  after  May  22  ;  if  they  do  not  prove  that,  they 
prove  none.  Even  the  sending  of  May  1 1  must  be  established  on 
other  grounds.  Melanchthon  is  here  good  for  all  we  cite  him  for, 
or  he  is  good  for  nothing. 


88  CHRONOLOGY.  [1877-78. 

c.  Melanchthon's  words  are  not  then  "  reasona^/y  [u\fi]\ed"  in 
the  sencHng  of  the  nth  or  of  the  2 2d,  or  of  both.  It  is  a  curious  fact 
that  with  the  Lutheran,  just  as  with  Dr.  Brown,  the  very  heart  of  our 
argument  is  not  even  alluded  to  in  the  attempts  to  meet  the  argu- 
ment. The  demonstrated  fact  that  the  Elector,  Princes  and  Legates 
of  the  cities,  zvho  signed  the  Confession  and  their  Counselors  and 
Theologians  are  throughout  presented  by  IMelanchthon  as  those 
among  whom  the  discussion  took  place,  which  preceded  the  sending 
to  Luther ;  the  demonstrated  fact  that  they  were  not  present  as  a 
whole  till  May  27;  the  demonstrated  foct  that  until  after  May  22  it 
was  not  proposed  to  make  the  Saxon  Confession  a  general  one  ;  the 
demonstrated  fact  that  no  discussion  of  a  general  kind  took  place 
till  June — all  these  facts,  which  are  incontestible  and  decisive,  are  not 
even  alluded  to;  but  liltle  matters  are  dwelt  upon  which  have  no 
bearing  on  the  real  question,  and  are  decided  by  arguments  which, 
whether  good  or  bad  in  themselves,  are  totally  irrelevant  to  the 
entire  subject.  We  do  not  know  precisely  what  degree  of  reserva- 
tion may  be  involved  in  the  term  "reasonably"  by  which  the 
"fulfilled"  is  qualified;  but  we  feel  safe  in  assuming  that  what  is 
not  fulfilled  at  all  is  not  "■  7-easonably  fulfilled.'"  The  Lutheran's 
theory  is  not  only  not  in  reasonable  conformity  with  Melanchthon's 
words — it  is  directly  contradictory  of  them. 

ii.  The  most  important  fact,  in  which  the  Lutheran  finds  a  diffi- 
culty, is  one  which  we  have  presented  in  the  Conservative  Reforma- 
tion,^" It  is  there  said  :  "Luther's  letter  of  June  20^  to  Justus 
Jonas,  gives  direct  evidence  how  long  the  interruption  of  corres- 
pondence continued:  'Your  letters  have  come  at  last,  my  Jonas, 
after  we  were  well- fretted  for  three  whole  weeks  with  your  silence.'  "'^' 
The  dates  of  the  letters  to  Luther,  at  this  period,  which  have  been 
preserved,  are  as  follows:  May  22,  Melanchthon  writes;  June  i, 
the  Elector;'--  June  13,  Melanchthon  ;-^  June  19,  Melanchthon.-'" 
These  dates,  however,  could  create  no  difficulty  in  any  case,  for 

^Tp.  230-232. 

"Coelestinus,  136  b.  Seckendorf,  11.  i8r.  Biiddeus,  No.  127.  Walch,  xvi. 
976,  who  is  generally  thought  to  be  mistaken  in  giving  it  as  the  reply  of  l.uther 
to  the  letter  of  Jonas  of  June  25-29.     De  Wette,  iv.  45,  No.  1232. 

■•'^Werke ;  Jena,  v.  25.     Leipzig,  xx.  175. 

™Corp.  Ref.,  iv.     Sup.,  1008,  No.  721,  a. 

*'Corp.  Ref.,  11.  731. 


1877-78.]  A    SLIGHT    QUKSTION.  89 

they  involve  the  personal  correspondence  of  Luther  only.  We  have 
here  to  do  with  a  single  official  communication.  But  these  dates 
certainly  remove  one  difificulty.  They  show  that  there  was  com- 
munication with  Luther  from  Augsburg,  at  three  periods  after  May 
22,  and  in  time  for  him  to  have  examined  the  Confession  again,  and 
to  have  sent  his  views.  The  courier  who  took  the  Elector's  and 
Melanchthon's  letters,  could  have  taken  other  communications. 
There  is  no  intrinsic  impossibility  arising  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  and  no  insuperable  lack  of  evidence,  granting  that  these  data 
really  exhaust  the  case  and  the  evidence.  There  is  no  evidence 
whatever  against  Melanchthon's  statement  of  this  sending  after  the 
discussions,  which  followed  May  22.  But  we  do  not  know  that  these 
data  really  do  exhaust  the  case,  or  the  evidence.  There  may  be 
much,  yet  unknown  to  us,  which  would  shed  a  powerful  light  on  the 
whole  question. 

To  abate  the  merely  negative  argument  from  the  assumed  silence 
of  Luther,  th.ere  are  various  things  which  it  may  be  well  to  remem- 
ber : 

1.  Let  us  remember  how  kw  are  the  data,  how  much  of  the  most 
important  matter  is  lost.  Out  of  all  those  days,  full  of  intense  feel- 
ings, of  plans,  hopes  and  fears,  we  have  but  a  whisper  here  and 
there.  Of  days  which  must  have  been  crowded  with  much  of  which 
we  would  like  to  know  everything,  we  know  almost  nothing.  His- 
tory is  often  compelled  to  reconstruct,  after  the  manner  of  the  com- 
parative anatomist  who  has  but  a  scale,  a  bone,  a  tooth,  to  guide 
him  in  his  restoration  of  some  giant  figure. 

2.  Luther  often  does  not  answer  the  particular  points  of  a  letter, 
or  assumes  that  what  he  says  to  one  would  come  to  the  knowledge 
of  another,  or  answers  by  the  deed,  without  the  word  of  detail. 
Any  one  who  will  go  over  his  correspondence  as  given  in  this  vol- 
ume, will  be  struck  with  this. 

3.  His  complaints  of  the  silence  for  three  weeks  in  June,  have 
respect  to  the  correspondence  of  his  personal  friends — of  Melanch- 
thon  especially,  and  Jonas. 

4.  He  shows  no  anxiety  in  regard  to  the  Confession,  but  only  in 
regard  to  the  personal  safety  of  his  friends,  and  the  safety  of  the 
cause. 

5.  He  does  not  say  that  he  has  received  no  communications  from 
Augsburg.  We  know  he  received  some,  outside  of  the  correspon- 
dence with  personal  friends. 


90  CHRONOLOGY.  [1877-78. 

6.  There  were  secret  and  carefully  guarded  communications  with 
Luther.  Spies  were  very  active,  especially  after  the  coming  of 
the  Emperor.  The  ordinary  messengers  were  treacherous.  Special 
precautions  might  be  taken  in  communicating  with  Luther.  His 
place  of  retreat  was  kept  secret  from  the  Romanists. 

7..  The  same  general  reasons  which  caused  Lutlier  to  be  left  at 
Coburg,  would  cause  the  Prince  to  keep  him  as  much  out  of  view 
as  possible.  Because  he  was  the  power  mightier  than  the  throne,  he 
was  very  carefully  kept  behind  the  throne. 

8.  The  lives  of  the  Confessors  were  in  peril.  War  was  threat- 
ened. Persecution  was  urged,  and  a  shght  pretence  of  provoca- 
tion might  be  sufficient  to  precipitate  matters.  The  charge  of  col- 
lusion with  Luther,  wlio  was  under  both  bans,  might  have  been 
used  as  a  pretext  not  only  for  breaking  off  all  negotiations,  but  for 
violence  and  bloodshed.  Hence  every  official  approach  to  Luther, 
in  June,  was  most  solicitously  guarded. 

9.  Niirnberg  suggests  possible  solutions  of  some  of  the  yet  unrav- 
eled mysteries.  It  is  to  the  diary  of  its  delegates  we  owe  the  most 
important  of  the  Annals  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Niirnberg 
lies  midway  on  the  route  between  Augsburg  and  Coburg.  Luther 
received  much  from  Augsburg,  through  friends  at  Niirnberg.  What- 
ever went  to  Niirnberg  was  half-way  to  Luther,  and  to  Niirnberg 
copies  of  the  Confession  were  passing  at  the  very  period  in  discus- 
sion. How  easy  it  would  have  been  by  a  secret  understanding  to 
have  a  copy  sent  by  arrangement  with  the  Niirnbergers,  Luther's 
zealous  friends,  and,  even  as  over  against  Melanchthon,  almost  jeal- 
ous of  his  position  and  rights  in  this  great  crisis  !  What  will  Luther 
think  of  it?  would  to  them,  and  all  the  friends  of  the  Reformation, 
at  Augsburg  and  elsewhere,  be  a  supreme  question. 

10.  There  may  have  been  a  special  arrangement  by  which  Luther 
was  reached  and  heard  from  in  this  particular  crisis,  with  an  extra- 
ordinary degree  of  promptness.  Such  a  communication  would  of 
course  be  guarded  with  special  caution.  When  Maimburg  says'" 
that  ^^  couriers  were  sent  daily  to  keep  Luther  informed  as  to  what 
was  doing  in  the  Diet  and  the  Colloquies,"  his  statement  may  have 
been  influenced  by  rumors  which  rose  from  imperfect  knowledge  of 
a  particular  case  of  sending. 

The  Romanists  had  got  into   their  hands,  by  clandestine  means, 

^iRistor.  Lutheranism.     Lib.  Ii.  sec.  32.     See  Seckendorf,  II.  sec.  L.K1X. 


1877-78.]  A    SLIGHT  QUESTION.  9 1 

Luther's  XVII  Articles.  There  were  spies  and  sneaks,  and  inform- 
ers, in  the  Protestant  camp,  as  there  are  in  all  camps.  The  Rom- 
anists were  very  eager  to  get  possession  of  the  Confession  before  its 
delivery,  and  Rome  had  plent}^  of  children  to  whom  perjury  and 
murder,  for  the  Church's  s.ike,  were  virtues.  It  would  have  com- 
pletely thwarted  all  the  plans  of  the  Confessors  if  their  document 
had  been  intercepted.  If  a  copy  of  the  Confession  had  been  seized 
on  its  way  to  Luther,  the  enemies  would  have  been  triumphant,  the 
friends  humiliated  and  weakened  beyond  measure.  The  Confes- 
sion, it  is  safe  to  say,  would  in  that  case,  never  have  been  presented 
to  the  Diet.  In  sending  it  to  Luther,  after  the  gathering  of  the 
Estates,  with  the  Emperor,  special  precautions  could  be  employed. 
It  would  not  go  openly  with  the  ordinary  correspondence  through 
the  common  couriers.  All  allusions,  in  letter,  which  would  give  a 
hint  of  the  sending,  or  a  clue  to  it,  could  be  avoided.  The  obli- 
gations of  secrecy  on  the  part  of  all  involved,  would  be  made  very 
strict.  The  reasons  for  making  it  a  secret  then,  would  be  of  force, 
for  keeping  it  a  secret,  and  it  is  with  the  air  of  imparting  something 
secret  hitherto,  that  Melanchthon  puts  forth  his  statement  years 
afterward. 

11.  There  may  be  unknown  sources  of  obscuration,  in  regard  to 
the  points  here  involved.  New  sources  of  evidence  may  here  be 
opened,  as  they  have  been  on  points  of  greater  difficulty.  The 
Niirnberg  letters,  which  shed  so  much  light  upon  the  dark  points  of 
the  history  of  the  Confession,  were  unknown  for  centuries.  Mis- 
apprehensions have  been  dispelled,  after  enduring  for  ages.  Diffi- 
culties long  considered  insuperable,  have  vanished  before  the  dis- 
covery of  some  fact  of  seemingly  slight  character.  How  many 
surface  difficulties  does  the  Book  of  books  present,  and  how  many 
of  the  most  serious  of  them  have  been  dispelled  with  the  growth 
of  knowledge  !  Falsehood  hedges  her  path  with  cunning  contri- 
vances, and  hence,  in  the  outstart  of  the  searcher,  all  the  obtrusive 
probabilities  may  seem  to  be  on  the  side  of  error,  all  the  apparent 
difficulties  may  lie  in  the  way  of  truth,  whose  very  innocence 
makes  her  move  with  unguarded  steps. 

12.  But  waiving  all  this:  In  the  strongest  putting  of  the  objec- 
tion it  only  amounts  to  negative  improbability  over  against  direct 
evidence  of  the  very  strongest  and  most  unimpeachable  kind.  It 
amounts  to  this,  that  we  do  not  now  possess  corroborative  evidence 


92  CHRONOLOGY.  [1877-78. 

of  a  certain  kind.  But  were  this  valid  and  overwhelming  for  an  in. 
ference  of  any  kind,  it  would  not  be  such  for  the  inference  made  by 
the  Lutheran.  Melanchthon's  words  can  have  but  one  meaning  — 
that  Luther  had  the  entire  Confession  sent  to  him  subsequent  to 
May  2  2.  If  it  can  be  shown  that  it  could  not  have  been  sent 
at  that  time,  the  inference  is  not  that  Melanchthon  meant  to  express 
some  other  time,  but  that  he  was  totally  mistaken:  He  falsified,  or 
he  blundered.  The  Lutheran  is  shut  up  to  one  or  other  of  these 
conclusions  if  it  would  shake  our  position.  But  in  arguing  as  it 
does,  on  the  assumption  that  Melanchthon  wrote  the  truth,  its  ob- 
jection becomes  fatal  to  itself,  and  leaves  our  argument  untouched. 
It  is  simply  impossible  and  absurd  to  say  that  Melanchthon's  notifi- 
cation of  dates  is  correct,  and  yet  that  there  was  no  later  sending  to 
Luther  than  May  22. 

Nothing  but  the  utter  overthrow  of  Melanchthon's  credibility  as  a 
witness  can  weaken  our  claim  to  have  established  by  the  strongest 
moral  probability  that  the  Augsburg  Confession,  doctrinally  the 
same  in  principle  and  essential  detail  throughout,  was  sent  three 
times  to  Luther,  in  three  different  stages  of  elaboration,  previous  to 
its  delivery.  If  this  result  be  accepted,  it  annihilates  at  one  stroke 
the  boldest  and  most  plausible  of  the  pretences  by  which  the  attempt 
has  been  made  to  weaken  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  a  witness  and 
bulwark  of  pure  Lutheranism,  and  as  a  barrier  against  Sectarian 
Unionism. 


A  QUESTION  OF  LATINITY. 


A  QUESTION  OF  LATINITY. 

BV  REV.  HENRY  E.  JACOBS,  D.  D.,  Franklin  Professor  in  Pennsylva- 
nia College. 

IN  the  Quarterly  Revie7v,  for  April,  1878,  we  have  been  called  to 
account  for  an  endorsement,  given  several  years  ago,  to  that 
portion  of  ''The  Conservative  Reformation,"  which  treats  of  the 
relation  of  Luther  to  the  Augsburg  Confession.  In  the  Mercersbiirg 
Revie7v  for  January,  1872,  p.  72,  we  had  said: 

"The  hypothesis  of  Riickert,  according  to  which  Luther  was  pre- 
vented by  a  strategy  of  the  Elector,  from  actually  participating  in 
its  composition,  is  accurately  examined  and  completely  overthrown 
by  the  evidence  of  original  documents.  Liasmuch  as  the  aim  of  the 
theory  is  to  prove  the  existence,  in  the  Confession,  of  concessions 
to  Rome,  which  would  have  met  the  disapproval  of  Luther,  if  he  had 
been  aware  of  them,  we  have  always  thought  it  sufficiently  answered 
from  the  ground  of  internal  evidence;  for  all  the  doctrines  thus 
attacked,  can  be  reproduced  from  innumerable  passages  of  Luther, 
written  not  only  after,  but  very  many  before,  the  Diet  of  Augsburg. 
Scarcely  a  charge  of  this  kind  can  be  made  against  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  which  does  not  apply  also  to  the  Larger  and  Smaller  Cat- 
echisms. Yet  it  is  a  matter  of  congratulation,  that  the  author  has 
met  tlie  hypothesis  on  its  own  ground,  and  found  it  to  be  so  en- 
tirely opposed  to  the  facts  in  the  case.  In  connection  with  this 
chapter,  we  have  carefully  studied  in  the  original  the  entire  corres- 
pondence referred  to,  and  can  bear  witness  to  the  accuracy  of  every 
statement  in  the  discussion." 

In  this  last  sentence,  the  editor  of  the  Quarterly  finds  "a  mani- 
fest reference  to  the  strictures  of  this  Reinetn  on  the  character  of 
some  of  the  statements  and  arguments  of  the  Conservative  Refor- 
inationy  It  may  be  well,  in  passing,  to  say  that  we  have  no  recol- 
lection whatever  of  any  strictures  of  the  Revieio  which  were  in 
mind,  when  the  notice  referred  to  was  written.  The  Conservative 
Reformation  had  appeared  almost  three  months  before  it  was 
noticed  in  the  Quarterly.     Beginning  our  study  of  it  immediately 

(95) 


96  A   QUESTION   OF   LATINITY. 

on  its  publication,  in  connection  with  the  chapter  on  the  subject 
before  us,  we  read  the  collection  of  the  correspondence  during  the 
Diet,  made  l)y  Coelestinus,  which  assured  us  of  the  strength  of  Dr. 
Krauth's  position,  the  correctness  of  his  inferences,  and  the  utter 
untenableness  of  the  opposite  theory.  The  Reviezv  reached  us  dur- 
ing a  period  of  great  care  and  anxiety,  followed  in  the  same  month 
by  absence  from  home,  and  the  death  of  a  beloved  father  ;  so  that, 
on  referring  to  our  copy  since  the  recent  revival  of  the  subject,  we 
find  the  pages  containing  the  strictures  uncut.  We  were  not  unac- 
quainted, it  is  true,  with  certain  exceptions  which  the  editor  of  the 
Review  had  taken  to  Dr.  Krauth's  renderings;  but  we  knew  of  these 
chiefly  from  private  conversation,  and  the  reference  of  a  sentence 
to  us  for  examination,  with  our  written  opinion  on  which  we  had 
believed  him  to  be  satisfied.  We  in  no  way  considered  the  editor 
of  the  Revieiv  the  champion  of  the  theory  which  we  pronounced 
untenable,  although  even  if  we  had,  our  testimony  against  it  would 
have  been  no  less  emphatic.  So  much  as  to  the  charge  of  going 
out  of  our  way  to  attack  the  Riview. 

The  article  now  before  us,  has  compelled  a  reexamination  of  the 
entire  subject.  Such  glaring  blunders  in  translations  from  the  Latin 
have  been  charged  ^upon  the  renderings,  for  the  endorsement  of 
which  we  are  held  accountable,  that  it  is  a  simple  duty  to  test  the 
matter  still  more  thoroughly,  and  either  to  confess  error,  or  state 
the  reasons  why  we  deem  the  arguments  adduced  insufficient  to 
convince  us. 

Our  article  in  the  I\ferccrsb//rg  Revieiv  scarcely  makes  us  respon- 
sible for  any  translations  beyond  those  of  the  .correspondence. 
Neither  can  we  be  held  accountable  for  any  rendering  that  may 
appear  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Diet,  other  than  had  previously 
appeared  in  the  Conservative  Reformation.  Waiving,  however,  all 
immunities  which  we  might  claim  from  our  past  relation  to  the  con- 
troversy, we  propose  to  consider  the  entire  question  of  Latinity  in- 
volved in  the  exceptions  that  have  been  taken.  We  approach  it 
as  though  it  were  entirely  a  new  subject,  and  give  the  result  of  in- 
vestigations with  the  aid  of  authorities  more  trustworthy  than  any 
we  had  previously  at  our  command.  We  acknowledge  that  our 
language  of  seven  years  ago,  in  which  "we  bear  witness  to  the 
accuracy  of  <'Z'^;7  statement  involved  in  the  discussion,"  was  some- 
what stronger  than  we  now  see  was  justified  by  the  extent  of  our 


A   QUESTION   OF-  LATINITY.  97 

researches  at  that  time ;  since,  as  we  grow  older,  we  are  no  longer 
satisfied wvith  processes  which  seemed  sufificiently  ample  then.  But, 
after  a  patient  reconsideration  of  the  entire  matter,  we  are  com- 
pelled to  say  that  the  recent  exceptions  have  not  led  us  to  detect 
any  error. 

The  history  of  the  origination  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  not 
without  its  difficulties.  There  are  links  wanting,  the  absence  of 
which  we  greatly  miss.  It  is  scarcely  to  be  wondered  at  that  some 
readers  of  the  correspondence,  hoping  to  find  among  what  has  been 
preserved  some  letter  either  from  Luther  to  Melanchthon,  or  from 
Melanchthon  to  Luther,  concerning  the  submission  of  the  Confes- 
sion in  its  complete  form,  or  some  allusion  to  such  a  letter,  become 
discouraged,  and  begin  to  question  whether  at  this  stage  of  prepara- 
tion the  Confession  was  ever  seen  by  Luther,  until  after  its  delivery. 
Nor  need  we  be  surprised,  that,  full  of  a  theory  built  upon  this- 
negative  evidence,  the  temptation  may  become  strong  to  explain 
away  positive  proof  to  that,  whose  chronological  relations  they 
cannot  precisely  fix,  and  to  do  violence  to  language  that  forbids 
such  interpretation. 

It  is  assumed  on  both  sides,  in  the  argument,  that  Melanchthon 
is  a  competent  witness  to  the  origin  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
that  the  purity  of  his  character  forbids  the  idea  of  prevarication  on 
his  part,  that,  after  the  lapse  of  thirty  years,  his  memory  was  suffi- 
ciently accurate  concerning  the  most  important  event  of  his  life, 
that,  notwithstanding  advancing  years  and  the  loss  of  health,  his 
intellectual  power  was  still  unabated,  and  that  the  habit  of  precision 
in  the  choice  and  application  of  words,  for  which  he  was  distin- 
guished above  his  cotemporaries,  had  not  deserted  him.  All  this 
is  conceded;  and  the  decision  of  the  question  is  made  to  turn 
upon  the  translation  of  a  passage  in  the  preface  to  the  Latin  edition 
of  the  Corpus  Doctrin<z  (February  i6th,  1560.)^ 

Congessi  igitur  simplici  studio  capita  confessionis,  quae  extat, 
complexus  paene  summam  doctrince  Ecclesiarum  nostrarum,  et  ut 
Imperatori  responderetur,  et  ut  falsa  crimina  depellerentur.  Ac 
nihil  sumsi.  Pracsentibus  Principibus  et  aliis  gubernatoribus  et 
concionatoribus  disputatum  est  ordine  de  singulis  sententiis.  Missa 
est  deinde  et  Luthero  tota  forma  confessionis,  (pii  Principibus  scrip- 
sit  se  hanc  confessionem  et  legisse  et  probare.     Haec  ita  acta  esse, 

JC.  R.  IX.  1052. 
7 


98  A   QUESTION   OF   LATINITY. 

Principes  et  alii  honesti  et  docti  viri  adhuc  superstites  meminerunt. 
Postea  coram  Imperatore  Carolo  in  magna  frequentia  Principum 
lecta  est  haec  confessio,  quod  ipsnm  ostendit,  non  esse  obtrusam 
Caesari  non  poscenti. 

This  Dr.  Krauth  has  translated  r 

"I  brought  together,  therefore,  in  singleness  of  purpose,  the 
principal  points  of  the  Confession,  which  is  extant,  embracing 
pretty  nearly  the  sum  of  the  doctrine  of  our  churches." 

"I  assumed  nothing  to  myself.  For  in  the  presence  of  the 
Princes  and  other  officials,  and  of  .the  preachers,  it  was  discussed 
and  determined  upon  in  regular  course,  sentence  by  sentence." 

"  The  complete  form  (/<?/«  forma)  of  the  Confession  was  subse- 
quently sent  to  Luther,  who  wrote  to  the  Princes,  that  he  had  both 
read  the  (literally  this — hanc)  Confession,  and  approved  it." 

"That  these  things  were  so,  the  Princes  and  other  honest  men, 
yet  living,  will  remember." 

"After  this  (^postea),  before  the  Emperor  Charles,  in  a  great  as- 
sembly of  the  Princes,  this  Confession  was  read." 

To  the  third  and  fourth  sentences  of  this  translation  exception  is 
taken,  as  follows  : 

1.  "It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  de  singulis  sententiis  mQixns 
'sentence  by  sentence.'  It  may  mean,  and  probably  does,  con- 
cerning each  opinion  or  subject  or  point." 

2.  "  It  is  quite  certain,  however,  and  does  no  require  a  very  pro- 
found knowledge  of  Latin  to  know  thus  much,  that  disputattim  est 
cannot  have  as  its  direct  subject  confessio,  and  hence  that  Melanch- 
thon  does  not  say  :  '  It  [the  Confession]  was  discussed  and  deter- 
mined upon.'  The  verb  is  impersonal,  and  the  meaning  simply  is, 
'  there  was  discussion  in  order  on  each  opinion  or  point ;  or,  as  Dr. 
K.  translates,  'sentence  by  sentence.'  " 

3.  "Where  the  'and  determined'  comes  from  we  are  not  in- 
formed, and  are  at  a  loss  to  conjecture." 

4.  "When  it  is  repeated,  as  it  is,  the  words  are  italicized  thus  : 
'  It  was  discussed  and  determined  upon,'  etc.  Then  we  have  it,  italics 
and  additions,  '  It  was  sent  after  the  discussion  and  determination  of 
it  in  regular  order,  article  by  article,  as  it  came,  and  sentence  by 
sentence,  before  and  by  Princes,  officials  and  theologians'  (Diet,  p. 
240).     If  it  is  meant,  after  the  fashion  of  our  English  Bibles,  to 

2  Proceedings  of  Diet,  p.  238. 


I 


A    QUESTION    OF    LATINITY.  99 

indicate  by  italics  that  the  words  have  been  interpolated  by  the 
translator,  and  are  no  part  of  Melanchthon's  text,  very  well ;  but 
we  suspect  this  is  not  the  design,  nor  will  the  reader  so  understand 
it.  We  have  thus  interpolated  into  Melanchthon's  statement '  de- 
tertnined  upon,  article  by  article  as  it  came  .  .  .  by,'  without  the 
shadow  of  authority  in  the  original.  It  is,  however,  important  to 
the  author's  purpose,  and  these  six  words  of  Melanchthon — dispu- 
tatum  est  ordine  de  singulis  sententiis — are  made  to  do  good  service 
in  the  cause.  But  even  after  putting  into  the  translation  of  Me- 
lanchthon's statement  twice  as  much  as  it  really  contains,"  etc.,  etc. 
5.  "  Tola  forma  does  not  refer  so  much  to  the  finish  or  complete- 
ness of  the  work  as  the  entirety  or  totality  of  the  document,  its 
plan  or  structure.  .  .  .  We  should  like  to  know  where  he  found 
any  such  meaning  as  '  finished  '  fc«'  tota.  We  venture  to  say  that 
'  finished '  or  '  completed '  in  the  sense  assigned  to  tota,  is  quite  for- 
eign to  the  meaning  of  that  word.  To/tts  expresses  the  whole  in 
opposition  to  a  part,  and  not  'finished'  in  opposition  to  'un- 
finished.' " 

I.     DE   SINGULIS    SENTENTIIS. 

It  is  conceded  that  this  may  mean  "  sentence  by  sentence  ;"  but 
it  is  objected  that  probably  a  better  translation  is,  "concerning 
each  opinion  or  subject  or  point;"  and  then,  on  the  basis  of  this 
latter  translation,  an  attempt  is  made  to  render  the  expression  in- 
definite and  general.  No  one  at  all  acquainted  with  the  Latin,  will 
deny  that  one  of  the  most  frequent  meanings  of  sententia  is  "  opin- 
ion, purpose,  determination,  decision."  In  this  sense  it  is  used, 
only  a  few  paragraphs  below  the  sentence  to  which  exception  is 
taken  : 

Spero  meas  labores  et  sententias  multis  pis  et  doctis  probari;  ct 
semper  me  ipsum,  measijue  sententias  et  actiones  subjeci,  et  adhuc 
subjicio  judiciis  omnium  piorum  et  eruditiorum. 

But  that  sententia  frequently  has  the  meaning  of  "a  thought  ex- 
pressed in  words,  a  sentence,  a  period,"  "a  proposition,"  is  just  as 
manifest.  In  this  sense,  we  find  it  in  the  great  works  on  Rhetoric, 
the  De  Oratore  of  Cicero,  and  the  De  Institutione  Orator ia  of 
Quintilian,  upon  both  of  which  Melanchthon  published  scholia. 
This  use  oi  sententia  might  be  illustrated  by  several  passages  in  the 
De  Oratore,  for  example,  L.  ii.,  c.  viii.  and  ix. 

In  the  Rhetorica  ad  Herennium,  long   regarded  as  from  the  pen 


lOO  A   QUESTION   OF   LATINITV, 

of  Cicero,  and  included  in  many  editions  of  his  works,  but  now 
ascribed  to  Cornificius  and  recognized  as  one  of  the  sources  from 
which  Cicero  drew  largely,  we  find  a  definition  of  sententia  accom- 
panied by  examples  that  leave  no  doubt  as  to  its  meaning. 

Sententia  est  oratio  sumpta  de  vita,  quae  aut  quid  sit,  aut  quid 
esse  oporteat  in  vita,  breviter  ostendit,  /.  e.,  "an  expression  de- 
rived from  life,  which  briefly  shows  what  is,  or  what  should  be  in 
life."  Then  follow  examples  of  what  he  calls  simple  sentences,  e. 
g.,  Difficile  est  primum  virtutes  revereri,  qui  semper  secunda  fortuna 
sit  usus.  Liber  is  est  aestimandus,  qui  nulli  turpitudini  servit. 
Egens  aeque  est  is,  qui  non  satis  habet,  et  is,  cui  nihil  satis  potest 
esse.  L.  iv.,  c.  xvii.  In  c.  xix.,  a  member  or  clause  is  defined  as 
"a  subject  briefly  brought  to  a  close  without  a  complete  exhibition 
of  the  entire  sentence" — '■'■sine  to  tins  sententice  demonstratione  ;'''' 
and  then  follows,  as  an  example,  the  division  of  a  sentence  with  its 
various  clauses. 

In  Quintilian,  we  find  this  usage  of  the  word,  common  in  such 
expressions  as  initia  sententianim  (ix.  3,  36) ;  initia  et  clatisiilce 
sententiarum  (ix.  3,  45);  ad  singulas  sententias  clausulce  (xi.  3, 
135);  congeries  verborinn  ac  sententiarum  idem  significantium, 
followed  by  examples  of  the  repetition  of  sentences  and  words 
(viii.  4,  26,  27);  chidendi,  i?ichoandi  sente?itias  ratio  (ix.  4,  iS); 
in  media  parte  sententice  (ly..  4,  29);  minntissimis  sententiis  {^.  i, 
130),  and  many  others. 

The  dictionaries  all  give  this  meaning  as  one  of  frequent  occur- 
rence ;  and  students  who  have  passed  through  the  course  of  instruc- 
tion in  Latin,  prescribed  in  that  excellent  manual,  approved  by  the 
best  institutions  in  England  and  America,  Arnold's  Latin  Prose 
Composition,  will  recall  sententia  as  the  word  given,  p.  127,  for  sen- 
tence, and  to  be  applied  to  such  forms  as  :  "  He  gave  the  boys  the 
longest  sentences  he  could,  to  be  learned  by  heart  word  for  word." 

In  this  sense,  too,  the  word  sententia  is  employed  by  modern 
critics  in  their  Latin  notes  on  the  classics.  Without  spending  any 
time  in  searching  for  examples,  we  give  one  that  accidentally  met 
our  eye,  while  writing,  in  Pearce's  Cicero  de  Oratore  (London, 
1 7  7 1 )  :  Qiiam  lectionem  et  scnsiis  et  haec  Ciceronis  sententia  pos- 
tulat,  i.  ^.,  "  both  the  sense  and  this  sentence  of  Cicero  demand." 

In  the  Clavis  Scripturce  Sanctce  of  Matthias  Flacius  Illyriciis,  the 
parts  of  a  sententia  are  enumerated,  just  as  sentences  in  English 


A   QUESTION    OF   LATINITY.  lOI 

Grammars,  viz.,  subject  and  predicate.  Sententia  igitur  aut  propo- 
sitio  qualiscunque,  potissimum  duobus  quibusdam  constare  solet, 
nempe  subjecto  ac  predicate,  seu  nomine  et  verbo.  "Subject  and 
predicate,  or,  in  other  words,  noun  and  verb."     (Clavis  S.  S.,  part 

n.,  p.  35°-) 

Nor  must  the  usage  of  Melanchthon  himself  be  overlooked.  In 
his  scholia  on  Cicero  de  Oratore  (C.  R.  xvi.,  749),  he  says  :  Pri- 
mum  enim  simplex  sententia  concipitur,  ut :  Scientia  liter  arum  est 
utilis.  Then  he  proceeds  to  show  how  this  simple  sentence  may  be 
varied  by  figures,  and  amplified.  In  his  grammars,  we  find  the  later 
word,  periodus,  ordinarily  employed ;  and  for  a  good  reason.  For 
sententia  emphasizes  the  thought  contained  in  the  form;  while 
periodus  emphasizes  the  form  without  regard  to  the  thought.  In 
the  clause  before  us,  a  deliberation  de  singulis  periodis,  would  have 
been  mainly  concerning  grammatical  and  rhetorical  points  ;  while 
de  singulis  sententiis  refers  to  a  careful  weighing  of  each  sentence, 
with  respect  to  the  doctrine  taught,  and  the  thought  conveyed. 

Among  Melanchthon's  works,  there  are  several  brief  treatises  or 
tracts,  which,  after  the  example  of  the  ancients,  he  entitled  sentcn- 
tice.  Just  as  one  hundred  and  sixty  of  the  wise  sayings  of  Varro 
were  collected,  and  published  as  the  Sententice  Varro nis,  and  as 
mediaeval  writers  entitled  concise  explanations  of  any  subject  "sen- 
tentice,'' as  Peter  Lombardus  was  styled  ''Magister  sententiarutn" 
so  also  with  Melanchthon's  SententicB  Veterum  Aliquot  Scriptoruin 
de  Coena  Dotnini  and  Sententice  ex  Sacris  Scripturis  collectce  quae 
docent  pr<2cipuurn  cultum  Dei  esse  promovere  Evangelium.  In  the 
former,  indeed,  a  sententia  may  cover  a  paragraph  or  more  ;  in  the 
latter,  we  have  fifty-one  short  sentences  in  upwards  of  thirty-five 
sententice.  Even  with  the  use  of  sentefttia  in  this  latter  sense,  which 
may  include  a  number  of  sentences,  we  have  something  quite  dif- 
ferent from  what  is  intended  by  the  proposed  substitute  of  "  opin- 
ion, or  subject,  or  point,"  as  a  translation.  There  is  nothing  indefi- 
nite or  general  here  intended,  as  our  reviewer  desires  to  prove,  but  a 
clearly-defined,  terse,  compact,  brief  statement.  Glassius  speaks 
of  such  sententice  (^Philologia  Sacra,  p.  211),  as  "judgments,  which, 
with  wonderful  brevity,  contain  within  themselves  the  very  greatest 
subjects."  Speaking  of  sententice  in  this  sense,  Quintilian  says 
(xii.  10,  48):  "They  strike  the  mind,  and  frequently  by  one 
stroke  impel  it,  and  by  their  very  brevity  cleave  the  faster."     This 


I02  A    QUESTION    OF     LATINITY. 

would  be  sufificient  to  show  the  minuteness  of  the  process  described 
by  de  singulis  sententiis,  even  if  sententia  were  here  as  comprehen- 
sive as  when  used  by  Melanchthon  in  the  titles  above  cited. 

Nevertheless,  the  use  of  sentetitia  for  precisely  what  we  under- 
stand by  sentence,  was  fretjuent  with  Melanchthon.  For  example, 
in  his  Syntaxif  (1529  \  he  says  :  In  Syntaxi  praestat  exigere,  ut 
non  modo  discant,  quid  cur  cohaereat,  sed  numerent  etiam  ordine 
vocabula,  quae  ad  perfectam  sententiam  efferendam  requiruntur. 
Orditur  sententiam  nominativus,  aut  quod  vice  nominativi  fungitur, 
hunc  proxime  sequitur  verbum  finitum.  *  *  *  Hunc  ordinem 
verborum  in  interpretando  utile  est  a  pueris  exigere,  ut  animadver- 
tant  quot  voces  sententiam  absolvant.  "  The  terms  which  are 
required  for  producing  a  perfect  sentence.''  "The  nominative,  or 
what  performs  the  office  of  the  nominative,  begins  the  sentence.'' 
"That  they  may  notice  how  many  words  complete  the  sentence." 

The  context  in  which  de  singulis  sententiis  stands,  will  also  afford 
light  as  to  the  precise  meaning  here.  Melanchthon  is  writing  con- 
cerning the  preparation  of  a  form,  and  says  in  a  succeeding  para- 
graph :  "And  since  I  know  how  great  is  the  difficulty  of  this 
subject,  I  have  always  wished  that  godly  and  learned  men  should 
assemble,  and  that  i\\t  subjects  concerning  the  entire  doctrine  being 
calmly  deliberated  upon,  they  should  hand  down  to  posterity  the 
same  sentences  and  forms  of  speaking."  Cumque  sciam  quanta  sit 
hujus  rei  difificultas,  semper  optavi,  ut  pii  et  docti  homines  con- 
venirent,  et  j-ebus  placide  deliberatis  de  universa  doctrina  ejusdem 
sententias  et  loquendi  formas  posteritati  traderent.  Here  sententias 
is  placed  in  antithesis  to  rebus,  sentences  to  subjects.  It  is  not 
that  the  same  "  opinions,  subjects  or  points"  be  handed  down,  but 
the  very  same  sentences  expressing  these  opinions,  subjects,  points. 
Union  not  only  in  the  same  mind,  but  also  in  the  same  judgment ; 
not  only  in  the  thought,  but  also  in  the  expression  of  the  thought ; 
that  a  form  might  be  prepared,  which  would  remain  fixed  and  unal- 
tered, and  thus  be  transmitted  to  posterity,  in  the  very  sentences 
and  phrases  then  determined,  is  the  end  which  Melanchthon  thinks 
desirable.  We  are  reminded  of  Luther's  words  in  the  Preface  to 
the  Smaller  Catechism:  "Choose,  therefore,  the  form  of  words 
which  best  pleases  you,  and  adhere  to  it  perpetually."     So  also  in 

3C.  R.,  XX.  373. 


A    QUESTION    OF    LATINITY.  I03 

the  paragraph  in  dispute,  while  Melanchthon  is  speaking  of  a  differ- 
ent matter,  yet  the  method  proposed  is  undoubtedly  the  same. 

We  recur  to  the  antithesis  in  the  above  passage  between  res  the 
proper  word  for  "  subject,"  and  sententia.  Had  Melanchthon  in- 
tended to  say  ''subject  by  subject,"  his  words  would  have  been  ''  de 
singi//is  rebus  ;"  or,  if  topic  by  topic,  "de  singitH^  locis.''''  Point, 
the  third  word  suggested  as  a  substitute  for  sentence,  is  ambiguous. 
If  used  in  the  general  sense  of  caput  rerum,  head,  or  prominent  feat- 
ure, or  particular,  it  can  have  no  place  here.  It  would  be  no 
proof  that  Melanchthon  had  assumed  nothing  to  himself,  as  he  tries 
to  show  by  this  clause,  if  there  had  been  only  such  a  deliberation 
concerning  the  heads  of  the  proposed  confession,  as  would  have 
left  the  language  general  and  indefinite.  If  it  be  used  in  the  sense 
of  apex  literarum,  every  jot  and  tittle,  this  is  more  specific 
than  Melanchthon  intended,  or  the  critic  means  to  intimate. 
If  by  this  it  be  intended  to  make  sententia  equivalent  to  subject  or 
principle,  in  the  sense  in  which  we  speak  of  the  nine  points  of  the 
law,  or  the  five  points  of  Calvinism,  this  has  been  already  shown  to 
be  impossible.  If  Melanchthon  meant  any  one  of  these  things, 
with  his  customary  precision,  he  would  have  used  the  proper  word 
for  it,  and  not  sententia,  fur  which  we  can  find  no  such  meaning 
given  by  any  authority.  Such  a  rendering  may  be  allowed  in  an 
extemporaneous  translation,  expressing  in  general  terms  the  sense 
of  the  passage,  but  not  in  one  which  aims  at  exactness,  and  is  made 
the  basis  for  a  theory  concerning  the  siolution  of  historical  difficulties. 

But  it  will  be  found  further,  that  de  singulis  senfentiis  was  not 
coined  by  Melanchthon,  but  was  simply  adopted  by  him  from 
Cicero,  who  uses  it  in  the  very  sense  to  which  exception  is  taken. 
It  is  found  in  the  Thirteenth  Philippic  x.  22.  Cicero  announces  a 
letter  which  he  had  just  received  from  Hirtius,  and  says  :  Dumque 
de  singulis  sententiis  breviter  disputo,  velim,  Patres  conscripti,  ut 
adhuc  fecistis,  me  attente  audiatis.  "While  I  briefly  examine  it 
sentence  by  sentence,  I  wish  you,  conscript  Fathers,  to  hear  me  at- 
tentively, as  you  thus  far  have  done."  He  then  reads  the  title  : 
"Antony  to  Hirtius  and  Coesar,"  and  makes  his  comments;  then 
the  first  sentence  :  "  When  the  death  of  C.  Trebonius  was  made 
known,  I  did  not  rejoice  more  than  I  grieved;"  then  follows  an- 
other comment ;.  then  a  third,  a  fourth,  a  fifth  sentence,  with  com- 
ments interposed ;  then  a  sixth  sentence,  with  comments  between 


1  04  A    QUESTION    OF   LATINITY. 

each  clause,  and  in  like  manner  to  the  end  of  the  letter.  Hence 
Quicherat  and  Davelny,  in  their  Latin-French  dictionary  (Paris, 
1858),  define  this  expression  thus  "  De  singulis  sententiis  disputare, 
Cicero  :  Commenter  chaque  phrase  (d'  une  lettre)."  Here  the  ex- 
amination is  made  even  more  minute  than  sentence  by  sentence. 
It  is  not  likely  that  the  most  distinguished  commentator  on  the 
classics,  of  his  period,  by  mere  accident  stumbled  upon  the  same 
phrase  as  Cicero,  to  mean  quite  a  different  thing. 

The  ordine  that  precedes  is  also  to  be  taken  into  the  account ;  for 
while  it  expresses  the  manner  in  which  the  deliberations  of  the 
Princes  proceeded,  the  de  singulis  sententiis  marks  the  minuteness 
by  which  every  sentence  of  the  document  was  most  thoroughly  ex- 
amined. 

There  surely  can  be  no  question  raised  as  to  the  "singulis.'" 
As  a  distributive,  it  answers  like  all  of  its  class,  "  to  the  question 
quoteno  or  quoteni  ce-a  ?  ho7ej  many  at  a  time  ?  one  at  a  time,  two 
at  a  time,  etc.;  or  the  preposition  by  may  be  used,  by  tiuos,  by 
threes,  etc.,  or  the  word  each,  as  two  each,  three  each,  etc."  (Key's 
Latin  Grammar,  §  249  ;  Zumpt,  §  119  ;   Madvig,  §  75). 

The  phrase  de  singulis  sententiis,  literally  rendered,  is  therefore  : 
"  concerning  sentence  by  sentence"  or  "  concerning  the  sentences 
one  at  a  time"  or  "concerning  each  sentence  taken  separately." 

Thus  the  words  of  Melanchthon  have  been  understood,  where 
even  the  critic  must  admit  that  there  could  have  been  no  motive 
whatever  for  a  forced  rendering.  Thus  Francke  in  his  Prolegomena 
to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  reaches  the  same  conclusion.  Onmes 
ordines  cum  consiliariis  et  theologis,  utramque  formulam  tam  curi- 
ose  perlustrarunt  ac  poliverunt,  ut  de  singulis  deinceps  sententiis 
disputaretur. 

So,  too,  the  New  Market  translation  of  the  Symbolical  Books,  in 
the  historical  introduction,  furnishes  the  rendering  not  indeed 
altogether  satisfactory,  yet  correct  with  respect  to  the  sentcntia : 
"Each  sentence  *  *  being  discussed  in  order." 

Here,  therefore,  we  have  detected  no  error  in  Dr.  Krauth's 
translation,  but  find  that  the  charge  of  want  of  strict  accuracy  can 
justly  be  laid  at  our  own  door  for  a  translation  in  the  Quarterly 
Review  for  July,  1S77,  p.  362,  where,  in  rendering  a  note  of  Dr. 
Plitt,  of  Erlangen,  in  which  this  sentence  occurs,  misled,  like  the 
reviewer,  by  the  frequent   meaning   of  sententia   as  opinion,  but 


A   QUESTION   OF    LATINITY.  I05 

noticing  that  the  uncertainty  of  ''opinion"  was  not  in  place  here, 
without  consuhing  any  other  translation,  or  subjecting  the  clause  to 
a  very  critical  analysis,  we  translated  dc  singulis  sententiis  disputatutn 
est — "every  doctrine  was  discussed."  Such  a  translation  is  gener- 
ically  correct,  but  not  specific  enough  for  the  present  discussion, 
where  every  word  becomes  a  matter  of  minute  examination  and 
controversy;  and  we  are  grateful  for  the  occasion  that  has  led  to  a 
review  of  the  entire  subject,  and  a  detection  of  the  error. 

II.    THE  IMPERSONAL  CONSTRUCTION. 

We  beg  pardon  for  referring  to  a  very  elementary  principle.  At 
the  very  threshold  of  his  course,  the  student  who  attempts  the 
acquisition  of  another  language,  learns  that  there  are  two  modes  of 
translation.  The  intensely  literal  mode  rigidly  renders  word  for 
word,  and  every  part  of  speech  and  form  by  its  precise  English 
equivalent,  with  little  regard  to  the  awkwardness  of  the  sentences 
thus  framed,  or  their  failure  to  express  the  entire  force  and  full 
spirit  of  the  original.  In  the  schools,  we  are  confined  to  this 
mode,  until  the  student  has  mastered  the  construction.  But  when 
this  stage  is  once  reached,  we  pass  from  the  mechanical  to  the 
idiomatic  method  of  translation.  In  reality,  the  latter  is  the  only 
translation  properly  so  called ;  as  the  former  gives  us  the  foreign 
tongue  only  in  English  words,  but  not  with  an  accurate  reproduc- 
tion of  the  precise  shades  of  thought,  which  is  essential  to  a  true 
rendering.  Especially  in  the  classical  languages,  ideas  at  first  unno- 
ticed, and  altogether  untransferable  by  the  mechanical  method, 
depend  fre([uently  upon  the  order  of  the  words,  and  other  means 
for  conveying  emphasis  ;  and  in  order  to  be  faithful  in  reproducing 
the  full  meaning  of  the  author,  resort  must  be  had  to  another  idiom. 
For  example,  in  an  approved  work  on  Latin  idioms,  Ccescirem 
interfecit  amicus  is  translated,  "  Ca;sar  was  killed  by  his  friend."* 
AVe  almost  hear  the  exceptions  of  critics  of  the  school  which  the 
article  in  the  Review  represents ;  for  we  often  meet  them  at  a  very 
early  stage  in  the  course.  "What  ignorance  of  the  first  principles 
of  Latin,"  they  say.  "  CVsi-^;r;«  is  accusative.  Interfecit  \%  ■xc\\\q. 
Amicus  is  nominative.  It  does  not  re([uire  a  very  profound  knowl- 
edge of  Latin  to  know  that."  Of  course  not;  neither  does  it 
require  a  very  profound  knowledge  of  Latin  to  attain  a  more  thor- 

*Abbot's  Latin  Prose  through  English  Idiom,  p.  iii. 


Io6  A    QUESTION    OF    LATINITY. 

ough  insight  into  the  construction.  For  the  reflecting  student  will 
note  the  emphatic  position  of  amicus,  and  the  consequent  necessity 
to  reconstruct  the  entire  sentence,  in  order  to  assign  the  prominent 
idea  its  proper  place. 

So,  too,  clearness  often  requires  the  supplying  of  a  word  in  a 
translation.  All  that  can  be  demanded,  is  that  the  word  supplied 
be  clearly  implied  in  the  context,  and  that  the  translation  thus  ren- 
dered convey  no  idea  foreign  to  the  mind  of  the  author. 

Applying,  then,  this  principle,  we  find  that  the  impersonal  con- 
struction is  one  for  which  frequently  a  precise  equivalent  in  English 
cannot  be  given  by  an  intensely  literal  rendering.  The  design  of 
its  employment  in  preference  to  a  personal  construction,  is  to  throw 
the  emphasis  upon  the  idea  of  the  verb  instead  of  upon  that  of  the 
subject  of  the  state,  thought  or  action  described.  "  Hence,"  says 
Roby  (Latin  Grammar,  vol.  i.,  pp. 177-8),  "whenever  in  English 
an  unemphatic  pronoun  is  sufficient  to  denote  the  subject  without 
risk  of  mistake,  the  finite  verb  in  Latin  requires  no  addition  for  this 
purpose.  This  is  so  *  *  4.  in  certain  verbs  in  the  3d  person  singular, 
where  the  fact  of  the  action,  state  or  feeling,  is  the  prominent  point, 
and  the  doer  is  left  indefinite.     Such  verbs  are  called  impersonals." 

Such  is  the  construction  in  the  clause  disputatum  est  ordine  de 
singulis  sententiis.  Melanchthon  preferred  it  to  Confessio  disputata 
est  or  Coiifessionem  disputabant,  as  either  would  have  thrown  the 
emphasis  upon  the  Confessio,  or  a  pronoun  which  might  have  stood 
for  it,  instead  of  on  the  idea  conveyed  by  the  verb.  In  English, 
however,  the  unemphatic  pronoun  "  it  "  can  be  employed  to  express 
the  subject,  without  the  change  of  emphasis  resulting  from  the  sim- 
ilar construction  in  Latin  ;  while  such  a  translation  as  "  there  was  a 
discussion  and  determination,"  is  open  to  the  charge  of  conveying 
an  indefiniteness,  which,  because  of  the  difference  of  idiom,  is  not 
contained  in  the  Latin.  "The  idiomatic  frequency  of  impersonal 
constructions  in  Latin,"  says  Madvig  (Grammar,  Am.  Ed  ,  p.'  100), 
"may  be  avoided  in  English  in  various  ways,  particularly  by  the 
use  of  the  indefinite  they  and  one.''''  In  accordance  with  this  princi- 
ple, "  it  "  is  employed  for  the  same  purpose  in  the  clause  before  us. 
The  ablative  absolute  in  the  first  part  of  the  sentence,  renders  the 
change  of  the  passive  voice  to  active,  and  the  supplying  of  the  nom- 
inative "they"  as  suggested  by  Madvig,  less  natural,  although  the 
meaning  conveyed  would  be  the  same,  whether  the  translation  be 


A    QUESTION    OK    LATINITY.  I07 

"they  discussed  and  determined  it,"  or,   "  it  was  discussed  and  de- 
termined." 

"  It  was  discussed  and  determined,"  is,  therefore,  entirely  correct ; 
not  because  disptitatum  est,  a  neuter  form,  has  a  pronoun  referring 
to  Ctm/essio,  a  feminine  noun,  agreeing  with  it,  but  because  the 
context  clearly  shows  that  the  subject  of  the  discussion  and  determi- 
nation, was  the  Confession.  Accepting  the  substitute  of  the  Re- 
view: "  There  was  discussion  in  order  on  each  opinion  or  point," 
we  ask  :  On  each  opinion  or  point  of  what?  If  of  the  Confession, 
as  the  reviewer  cannot  dispute,  we  ask  whether  this  is  not  precisely 
the  idea  conveyed  by  the  translation  ?  Who  that  reads  the  entire 
paragraph  can  judge  otherwise?  No  fault  can  be  found  with  the 
translation,  unless  the  reviewer  can  prove  that  the  discussion  was  on 
some  other  subject,  or  about  matters  in  general,  or  that  the  author 
wished  to  keep  the  subject  of  the  discussion  out  of  view.  Apt  as 
the  exception  on  this  point  may  be  to  mislead  the  unwary,  yet  it 
detracts  greatly  from  the  force  of  the  arguments,  on  the  points  upon 
which  the  question  in  dispute  really  turns  For  it  does  not  require 
a  very  close  examination  of  the  subject  to  see  clearly  that  this  excep- 
tion is  a  mere  quibble.  No  amount  of  philological  research  can 
prove  that  a  general  conversation  on  indefinite  subjects  is  here 
meant.  It  was  the  Confession  that  was  discussed  and  determined  ; 
nothing  else. 

Ill,    MEANING  OF  DISPUTATUM   EST. 

Here  there  is  a  better  ground  for  the  exception  taken.  We  frankly 
acknowledge  that  at  first  we  also  had  some  doubt  concerning  the  le- 
gitimacy of  the  words:  "and  determined"  that  follow  "discussed." 
Our  doubt  arose,  not  from  the  fact  that  three  English  are  made  to 
do  service  for  one  Latin  word  ;  as  we  have  learned  that  the  accuracy 
of  a  translation  often  renders  such  an  expedient  necessary.  "I 
have  endeavored,"  says  Ernesti,  in  the  Preface  to  his  C/avis  Cice- 
roniana,  "  to  present  distinct  notions  of  Avords,  and  thus  to  lead 
tyros  away  from  that  childish  method,  too  common  in  our  schools, 
when  they  think  that  tliey  understand  an  author,  where  they  can 
translate  the  Latin  by  just  as  many  German  words."  Thus  for  ex- 
ample the  verb  opto  may  ordinarily  be  rendered  by  "  wish"  or 
"desire,"  but  the  moment  a  critical  point  rests  upon  its  meaning, 
and  it  becomes  a  subject  of  controversy,  then  such  a  translation 
must  be  made  as  will  bring  out  its  full  force,  as  distinguished  from 


Io8  A    QUESTION   OF   LATINITY. 

volo  and  expeto,  cupio,  aveo  and  gestio ;  and  we  liave  the  proper  ren- 
dering "to  wish  and  leave  the  reahzation  of  one's  wish  to  others," 
as  given  by  Doderlein  (Manual  of  Synonyms,  Am.  Edition,  p. 
221).  The  real  point  that  troubled  us,  was  as  to  whether  the  idea 
"determined  upon"  were  included  in  the  dispittatnm  est,  or 
whether  the  meaning  were  not  already  exhausted  by  the  term  "dis- 
cussed." That  it  sometimes  means  scarcely  more,  can  be  estab- 
lished. But  the  result  of  a  patient  examination,  has  shown  us:  i. 
That  there  are  the  very  best  authorities  for  this  additional  idea.  2. 
That  the  context  shows  that  this  idea  is  implied  here. 

Doderlein's  Hand-Book  op^  Latin  Synonyms,  translated  by 
Arnold,  gives  us  one  of  the  meanings  of  dispiito  :  "to  weigh  argu- 
ment against  argument,  and  ascertain  on  which  side  the  balance 
truth  lies"  (Am  Edition,  p.  63).  Here  we  have  precisely  "to 
discuss  and  determined  The  unabridged  German  work,  by  the 
same  author,  unrivaled  as  an  authority  in  its  department,  contains 
the  same  definition  :  "  Gnind gegen  gritndgestellt gleichsani  abrech- 
net  aiif  ivelcher  Seite  das  Plus  von  Wahrheit  bleibe'"  (iv.  18). 

White  and  Riddle's  Latin-English  Dictionary  (Fifth  Edition, 
1876),  is  conceded  to  be  thus  far  the  most  complete  of  Latin-Eng- 
lish Lexicons.  It  is  based  upon  Andrew's  translation  of  Freund's 
Lateinische  Worterbuch,  and  embodies  the  labors  of  Freund  in  cor- 
rections and  additions  to  Andrew,  as  well  as  extensive  additions  and 
revisions  on  the  part  of  the  two  English  editors.  We  quote  from 
the  unabridged  work.  Here  we  find  the  very  first  and  proper  meaning 
o( disputare,  to  be  "  to  cast  up,  calculate,  reckon,  estimate."  This 
meaning  is  supported  by  the  etymological  references  '^  dis  (No.  11. 
A.,  3  b)  and  puto  (No.  11.  a)."  Turning  to  the  references,  we  find  : 
"Futo — clear  up,  set  in  order,  arrange,  settle,  adjust.'"  ^'Dis,  of  com- 
putation severally,  one  aftrr  another,  and  so  in  pregnant  force  up, 
dinumero  disputo."  Precisely  in  accordance  with  this,  is  the  ety- 
mology of  the  English  word  dispute,  given  by  Webster:  "From 
prefix  dis  and  putare  to  clean  ;  tropically,  to  clear  up,  to  set  in 
order,  to  reckon,  to  think." 

Even  Andrew's  Lexicon,  to  which  every  American  student  has 
access,  shows  that  the  prominent  meanings  of  puto  are  "  to  clear 
up,  set  in  order,  arrange,  settle,  adjust,  reckon,  value,  estimate, 
esteem,  ponder,  consider,  reflect  upon,  decide,  judge,"  and  that 
"■  think  over,"  "  suppose,  account,  suspect,  believe,  think,  imagine," 


A   QUESTION    OF   LATINITY.  I09 

are  secondary,  as  is  illustrated  by  the  quotation  from  Aulus  Gellius  : 
"  Verbum  quoque  ipsum ///■/(?,  ([uod  declarandos  sentential  nostras 
causa  dicimus,  non  signat  profecto  aliud,  quam  id  agere  nos  in  re 
dubia  obscuraque,  ut  decisis  amputatisque  falsis  opinionibus,  quod 
videatur  esse  verum  et  integrum  et  incorruptum,  retineamus." 
"  The  very  word  puto,  which  we  speak  for  the  purpose  of  declaring 
our  decision,  designates  in  fact  nothing  else  than  that  in  a  doubtful 
and  obscure  matter,  we  aim  at  this,  viz.  :  that  false  opinions  being 
cut  off  and  pruned  away,  we  may  retain  what  seems  to  be  true  and 
sound  and  unadulterated."  He  might  have  continued  the  quota- 
tion :  "  Therefore  in  the  treaty  with  Carthage  silver  was  said  to  be 
putitni^  as  though  exputatimi,  and  refined  by  melting  {cxcoctimi), 
and  freed  from  all  foreign  material,  and  purified,  and  brightened  by 
the  removal  from  it  of  all  refuse."  Or  the  citation  might  have 
begun  a  sentence  or  two  earlier:  ^'piitare  the  ancients  have  applied 
to  the  removal  and  extirpation  of  useless  and  unnecessary  things 
from  any  matter,  and  the  leaving  of  that  which  seems  to  be  useful 
and  without  a  fault.  For  thus  it  is  said  that  trees  and  vines,  and  so 
also  accounts,////^?//"    are  i)runed,  settled). 

George's  Latin-GekiMan  Lexicon  (1869),  defines  dlspiitare:  i. 
Ganzlich  im  Reine  bringen,  abrechnen,  sich  berechnen.  2.  Etwas 
oder  iiber  etwas  abhandeln.  i.  To  bring  entirely  into  the  clear,  to 
reckon,  to  settle.  2.  To  treat  of  something  or  concerning  some- 
thing. 

Freund's  Latin-German  Lexicon  (1844),  the  original  of  Lev- 
erett,  Andrew,  White  and  Riddle:  "L  Ursprunglich  in  der  Ge- 
schaftssprache  :  eine  summe  nach  ihren  einzelheiten  iiberschlagen, 
abschiitzen,  abwagen,  Plautus,  Aulularia,  3  :  55-  IL  Ausserhalb 
der  Geschiiftssprache  :  einen  zweifelhaften  Gegendstand  nachden- 
kend,  oder  (gewohnlich)  redend,  abwagen,  erwagen,  untersuchen, 
auseinandersetzen,  abhandeln,  iiber  etwas  handeln,  u.  dgl."  L 
Originally,  in  mercantile  language  :  to  compute,  estimate,  weigh 
a  sum  according  to  its  items.  IL  Beyond  mercantile  language: 
By  reflecting  upon  a  doubtful  subject,  or  commonly  by  speaking 
upon  it,  to  weigh,  ponder,  investigate,  elucidate,  discuss,  treat  of 
anything. 

Facciolati  and  Forcellini's  Lexicon  (1805),  gives  among  other 
definitions,  the  following  :  Disputo  a  dis  et  puto,  quasi  hinc  et 
inde  puto,  ex  utraquc  parte  dissero,  sententiam  profero,  discepto," 


no  A   QUESTION    OF    LATINITY. 

/.  <?.,  "  From  dis  and  puto,  as  though  I  reckon  on  this  side  and  on 
that,  treat  of  both  sides,  announce  sentence,  decide"  (juridical 
meaning  of  discepto).  "Wherefore,"  they  continue,  "just  as 
Plautus,  Cas.  3  :  2,  25,  has  said,  putare  ?-ationtm  (to  settle  an  ac- 
count), so  also  disputata  ratio  (the  account  was  settled)  is  found  in 
the  same  writer,  Aul.  3  :  5,55,  and  dlspntatlo  is  used  for  computatio 
in  the  measure  of  fields  by  Columella,  Cap.  i,  Lib.  5." 

Stephan's  Thesaurus  (1735)  follows  the  definition  of  Varro, 
viz.:  pu) urn  facere,  to  make  pure,  and  adds  :  "  But  disputo  is  Ixo^- 
\Cdi\\y  disceptare  et  disserere,  Mart.  9:  79." 

So  too  the  Lexicon  MagnuiM  Juris  of  Kahl  (1689) :  "  For 
disputare  is  properly  to  make  pure.  But  tropically,  it  is  to  delib- 
erate upon  any  subject,  the  reasons  on  both  sides  being  collected, 
so  that  the  truth  may  at  length  be  learned." 

Holyoake's  Dictionary  (1677)  uses  almost  the  same  words: 
^'■Disputare  is  properly  to  make  pure  by  clearing  away  anything 
superfluous.  But,  metaphorically,  it  is  to  deliberate  on  any  subject, 
the  reasons  on  both  sides  being  collected,  so  that  the  truth  may  at 
length  be  learned,"  or,  as  it  could  be  translated  with  equal 
propriety,  "so  that  the  truth  is  at  length  learned."  Disputare 
proprie  est  putum  facere,  superfluum  quid  putando :  Metaphorice 
autem  est  aliquam  rem  inde  collectis  rationibus  agitare  ut  Veritas 
tandem  cognoscatur. 

With  this  agrees  the  Dictionarium  Decem  Linguarum  of  Am- 
BROsius  Calepinus  (1594),  in  which  the  definition  occurs.  '^Dis- 
putare likewise  signifies  to  deliberate  upon  any  subject,  so  that  the 
truth  may  at  length  be  learned,"  or  "is  at  length  learned."  Dis- 
putare item  significat  rem  aliquam  agitare,  ita  ut  verum  tandem 
cognoscatur. 

"Qui  disputat,"  says  St.  Augustine,  (Contra  Cresconium  Donatis- 
tam,  cxv.)  "verum  discernit  a  falso.  *  *  Qui  verus  disputator  est, 
id  est,  veritatis  a  falsi tate  discretor."  "  He  who  disputes  separates 
the  true  from  the  false.  *  *  He  who  is  a  true  disputer,  /.  c,  one 
who  separates  truth  from  falsehood."      Cf.  the  entire  paragraph. 

That  the  English  word  discuss  does  not  exhaust  the  meaning 
of  disputare  is  therefore  manifest.  "Discussion,"  say  several 
authorities  on  English  synonyms  (Crabb,  Webster),  "  often  serves 
more  for  amusement,  than  for  any  solid  purpose."  "  It  may  be  no 
more  than  a  collation  of  what  is  said  and  argued  upon  that  point, 


A   QUESTION   OF   LATINITY.  Ill 

without  giving  in  an  adhesion  to  any  conclusion  or  view  whatever'' 
(Smith's  English  Synonyms  Discriminated). 

We  have  found,  however,  as  additional  meanings  of  dispiitare, 
^^  to  weigh  argiimnt  against  argument,  and  ascertain  on  winch 
side  the  balance  truth  lies"  "  to  weigh,  cast  up,  calculate  ;"  '■'■to 
bring  entirely  into  the  char,''''  '■'to  settle;'''  lo  treat  of  both  sides, 
announce  sentence,  decide'''  to  deliberate  on  any  subject,  '■'so  that 
the  truth  may  at  length  be  learned.'''  This  surely  is  sufficient  to 
show  that  "  discussed  and  detey-mined"  do  not  exceed  the  limits  al- 
lowed in  a  definition  o( disputare. 

It  remains  to  ascertain  the  meaning  in  the  particular  passage 
before  us,  as  to  whether  the  context  implies  that  the  Confession 
was  determined  upon  sentence  by  sentence.  This  is  made  clear  by 
a  consideration  of  the  purpose  of  the  clause.  It  is  introduced  in 
order  to  show  that  responsibility  for  the  Confession  rested  not  with 
Melanchthon  alone,  or  even  chiefly  with  him,  but  also  with  Luther 
and  "the  Princes,  other  officials  and  preachers."  "I  assumed 
nothing  to  myself,"  Melanchthon  says;  for  "  in  the  presence  of  the 
Princes,"  etc.,  disputatum  est.  Before  the  fact  expressed  by  dispu- 
tatum  est,  the  form  prepared  was  simply  in  the  same  category  as  a 
bill  drawn  up  for  a  legislative  body,  before  any  action  upon  it  has 
been  taken.  No  condition  whatever  can  transfer  responsibility  for 
the  bill  from  the  author  to  the  body  of  legislators,  until  they  have 
by  direct  action  approved  it.  A  mere  discussion,  however  minute 
and  extended,  still  leaves  the  bill  upon  its  author's  hands.  If  Me- 
lanchthon meant  by  disputatum  est  nothing  more  than  pure  discus- 
sion, this  sentence  is  altogether  useless,  as  an  explanation  of  what 
precedes.  As,  however,  the  word  disputare  has  often  the  clearly 
established  meaning  of  "discuss  and  determine,"  all  the  difficulty  is 
at  once  removed  by  its  adoption. 

This  is  confirmed  by  the  Preface  to  the  German  edition  of  the 
Corpus  Doctrince,  which,  without  being  identical  with  the  preface 
to  the  Latin  edition,  nevertheless  presents  many  of  the  same  facts 
and  phrases.  "  Previously  also,  before  it  had  been  read  before  His 
Imperial  Majesty,  it  was  submitted  to  the  Elector  and  Princes  and 
ambassadors,  who  have  signed  it,  who  with  their  counselors  and 
preachers  who  were  there,  diligently  weighed  (fleissig  bewogen 
haben)  all  the  articles." 

This  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  de  singulis  sententiis  disputo 
of  the  Thirteenth  Philippic,  which  we  have  above  seen  that  Melanch- 


112  A   QUESTION   OF   LATINITY. 

thon  undoubtedly  had  in  mind.  Cicero  uses  dispi/to,  not  dissero. 
For  "  der  disso'cns  will  seine  subjective  Ansicht  aussprechen,  der 
disputans  will  ein  Resultat  von  objectiver  Giiltigkiet  gewinnen" 
(Doderlein  iv.  i8).  His  aim  is  not  the  expression  of  a  subjective 
view,  but  the  attainment  of  a  result  of  objective  validity.  He  is 
confident  that  the  doubt  and  hesitation  of  all  inclined  to  waver 
concerning  Antony  will  be  removed,  after  he  has  treated  of  each 
sentence,  and  led  them  to  a  determination  of  its  real  meaning. 
"  Quodsi  quis  adhuc  dubitare  potuit,  quin  nulla  societas  huic  ordini 
populoque  Romano  cum  ilia  importunissima  bellua  possit  esse ; 
desinet  profecto  dubitare  his  cognitis  litteris,  quas  mihi  missas  ab 
Hirtio  consule  modo  accepi.  Eas  dum  recito,  dumque  de  singulis 
sententiis  breviter  disputo,  velim,  Patres  conscripti,  ut  adhuc  fecistis, 
me  attente  audiatis." 

While,  therefore,  the  determination  of  the  form  undoubtedly  be- 
longs to  the  idea  of  the  original,  yet  the  emphasis  is  still  upon  the 
minuteness  and  system  of  the  process  applied  to  the  entire  Confes- 
sion. This  enters,  as  is  shown  by  the  definitions  cited,  into  the 
very  meaning  of  dispute,  in  a  manner  that  cannot  be  expressed  in 
Enghsh  without  expanding  the  sentence  even  more  than  as  rendered. 
Even  were  there  no  clause  dc  singulis  sententiis,  we  would  have  in 
disputo  not  a  mere  vague,  rambling  treatment  of  the  chief  points 
involved,  but  a  minute  analysis  of  the  entire  document,  taking  into 
the  account,  one  after  another,  all  its  items,  together  with  the  rea- 
sons that  could  be  cited  on  both  sides,  in  order  to  attain  a  clear 
and  fixed  form.  This  is  essential  to  the  idea  of  method  which  the 
verb  disputo  is  conceded  to  mean.  Doderlein  calls  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  German  derivative  disputiren  may  mislead  the  German 
student  ;  so  also  with  the  English  word  dispute.  "-Disputare,"'  says 
Dumesnil  (Latin  Synonyms,  Eng.  Trans.,  p.  206)  is  "to  dispute  as 
philosophers  do,''  /.  c,  systematically,  meth'odically.  ^'Disserere,'^ 
says  Doderlein,  "denotes  a  freer;  disputare  a  more  methodical 
treatment  of  the  subject"  (iv.  19). 

IV.      THE    ALLEGED    INTERPOLATIONS. 

The  charge  is  made  of  "  putting  into  the  translation  of  Melanch- 
thon's  statement  twice  as  much  as  it  really  contains."  To  support 
this  charge,  the  Proceedings  of  the  Diet,  p.  240,  are  quoted.  Even 
though  the  reviewer  may  not  have  so  intencfed,  the  impression  is 
made,  that  he  is  referring  to  the  translation.  It  reqiiires  but  a 
reference  to  the  page  mentioned  to  discover  that  the  sentence  ob- 


A    QUESTION    OF    LATINITY. 


I'3 


jected  to,  is  not  proposed  as  a  translation,  but  simply  as  one  of  the 
points  in  the  summary  of  the  argument.  On  p.  239,  Melanch- 
thon's  words  are  translated,  and  enclosed  in  quotation  marks.  On 
p.  240,  the  sentence  upon  which  the  charge  is  based,  is  without 
quotation  marks,  thus  indicating  that  they  belong  to  the  author  of 
the  note,  and  not  to  Melanchthon.  Yet  that  no  improper  use  has 
been  made  of  Melanchthon's  words  can  be  shown  as  follows  : 


ORIGINAL. 

L  at  in  Preface,  1560. 


German  Preface,  1559. 
Endlich  aber  ist  diese  Confes- 


Prjesentibus  Principibus  et  aliis  I  sio,    wie    es   Gott    gefiiget    und 


gubernatoribus  et  concionatori- 
bus  disputatum  est  ordine  de 
singulis  sententiis.  Missa  est 
deinde  et  Luthero  tota  forma 
confessionis. 


Translation. 
For    in  the  presence    of    the 


geben  hat,  durch  mich  also 
zusammen  gezogen,  welche  ihm 
der  ehrwirdig  Herr  Doctor  Mar- 
tinus  Luther  hat  gefallen  lassen. 
Sie  ist  auch  zuvor,  ehe  sie  vor 
Keys.  Majest.  offentlich  gelesen 
ist,  den  Chur  und  Fiirsten  und 
Botschaften  welche  sich  unter- 
schrieben  haben,  fiirgetragen,  die 
neben  ihren  Rlithen  und  Predi- 
canten,  welche  da  gewesen  sind, 
alle  Artikel  fleissig  bewogen 
haben. 

Summary. 

It  was  sent  after  the  discussion 


Princes  and  other  officials  and  of  j  and  determination  of  it,  in  regu- 
the  preachers,  it  was  discussed  1  lar  order  article  by  article  as  it 
and  determined  ui)on  in  regular  '  came,  and  sentence  by  sentence, 
course,  sentence  by  sentence,  before  and  by  Princes,  officials 
The  complete  form  of  the  Con-  and  theologians, 
fession  was  subsecjuently  sent  to  j 
Luther. 

We  ask  here,  In  what  has  Melanchthon  been  misrepresented  } 
The  only  idea  not  clearly  brought  out  in  the  Latin,  is  "  article  by 
article,"  and  this  is  found  in  the  German.  Disputo,  too,  always 
carries  with  it  the  idea  of  a  systematic  treatment  of  a  subject,  and 
when  modified  still  further  by  ordine  contains  fully  the  itlea  of  "dis- 
cussion and  determination  in  regular  order  as  it  came." 
8 


114  A   QUESTION   OF   LATINITY. 

V.    THE  MEANING  OF    "  TOTA  FORMA." 

Tota  is  not  translated  "finished"  or  "completed,"  as  asserted, 
but  "complete,"  as  a  reference  to  the  translation  will  show. 
Nevertheless,  that  the  complete  or  entire  form  means  the  completed 
or  finished  form,  is  manifest  from  the  statement  of  Melanchthon 
concerning  the  process  by  which  the  Confession  was  composed. 
Tota  is  indeed  most  frequently  applied  to  what  is  originally  a  whole, 
and  then  cannot  mean  complete,  or  imply  completed  or  finished. 
But  when  used,  concerning  that  which  the  context  shows  is  grad- 
ually formed,  and  applied  after  the  process  by  which  a  result  pro- 
duced has  ended,  it  is  as  evident  as  a  mathematical  axiom  that 
totus,  "  the  whole,"  "  all  the,"  means  complete,  and  refers  to  what 
has  been  finished,  and  is  no  longer  in  an  inchoate  condition.  A 
youth  may  indeed  say  Tota  mea  vita,  my  whole  life,  has  been  a  fail- 
ure, and  yet  the  tota  vita  may  represent  less  than  a  fourth  of  his 
earthly  life  when  finished  in  death  ;  but  just  as  he  advances,  does 
the  tota  advance  with  him,  so  that  at  every  moment  it  comprehends 
the  entire  course  over  which  he  has  passed,  until  his  career  end, 
when  tota  and  absohita  become  co-ordinate.  Any  principle  of  in- 
terpretation that  regards  tota,  when  used  after  a  document  has  as- 
sumed a  final  form,  as  applicable  to  it,  at  a  stage  in  its  preparation 
when  it  was  confessedly  in  a  form  quite  different,  either  casts  the 
imputation  of  dishonesty,  or  inaccuracy,  or  ignorance  upon  the 
author  of  the  original,  or  employs  a  mode  of  translation,  that  can 
derive  from  a  word  any  meaning  whatever  that  may  be  desired.  A 
most  convenient  method,  assuredly,  but  one  which  needs  neither 
grammars,  lexicons,  nor  the  study  of  authorities  !  The  more  we 
consider  the  objection  thus  made  concerning  the  tota,  the  more 
are  we  astonished  that  it  should  ever  have  been  raised  by  a  scholar 
of  the  acknowledged  intelligence  of  the  critic.  We  can  explain  the 
error  only  by  supposing  that  tota  forma,  with  the  emphasis  on 
forma,  was  marked  as  the  vulnerable  point,  and  then  by  some  in- 
explicable confusion  the  point  of  attack  was  transferred  to  the  tota. 
We  grant,  indeed,  that  in  a  looser  sense,  the  word  tota  might  be 
used  for  what  is  not  absolutely  complete  or  entire,  just  as  many  other 
terms  are  frequently  used  in  a  relative  sense.  Thus,  in  English,  a  man 
might  speak  of  the  loss  of  his  whole  fortune,  even  when  a  few  dol- 
lars were  still  left  him  from  the  ruin.  A  very  inconsiderable  amount 
may  sometimes  be  regarded  as  though  it  were  nothing.  The  tota 
here  clearly  means  that  there  was  nothing  whatever  of  importance 


A   QUESTION   OF   LATINITV.  II5 

in  the  forma  as  sent  to  Luther,  which  did  not  exist  in  the  form 
then  extant,  or,  as  the  note  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Diet  says  : 
"The  Confession,  when  Luther's  judgment  was  given,  was  in  such 
a  state  of  substantial  completeness,  as  to  make  it  morally  identical 
with  the  one  dehvered."  However  trifling  and  insignificant  a  sub- 
sequent change  might  have  seemed  to  Melanchthon,  yet  if  it  had 
been  afterwards  a  matter  of  controversy,  or  one  upon  which  Luther 
had  expressed  dissent,  it  would  have  been  a  violation  of  truth  to 
have  used  the  word  tola,  in  referring  to  the  sending  of  the  Confes- 
sion to  Luther,  subsequent  to  the  deliberations  of  the  Princes  and 
theologians  de  singulis  sententiis.  If  a  single  article  of  the  Confes- 
sion had  been  wanting,  the  tota  could  scarcely  be  used,  even  by  the 
widest  stretch  of  a  looser  signification  of  the  word. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  determine  the  force  of  its  English  derivative 
total,  which  has  preserved  the  meaning  of  its  primitive.  All  know 
what  a  total  eclipse,  total  darkness,  total  loss  of  sight,  total  sus- 
pension of  specie  payments,  mean.  It  is  not  simply  that  which  com- 
prises the  greater  number  of  parts,  but  all  the  parts  with  all  that 
these  parts  contain.  It  is  defined  as  complete  by  almost  all  our 
English  lexicographers — not  only  Webster  and  Worcester,  but  also 
the  British  authorities,  Johnson,  Scott's-Bailey,  Sheridan,  Kenrick, 
Jones,  Barclay,  Perry,  Walker,  Jameson,  Wright,  Richardson, 
Broag  and  Latham.  So  that  "the  entirety  or  totality  of  the  docu- 
ment" referred  to  by  the  reviewer  is  here  clearly  the  same  with  its 
completeness. 

That  totus,  when  applied  after  the  completion  of  an  object  to 
what  has  been  in  process  of  formation,  clearly  means  "  finished  in 
opposition  to  unfinished,"  is  shown  by  a  passage  in  one  of  Cicero's 
Letters  to  his  brother  Quintus  (Lib  iii.  c.  i):  Villa  mihi  valde 
placuit,  propterea  quod  summam  dignitatem  pavimentata  porticus 
habebat ;  quod  mihi  nunc  denique  apparuit,  posteaquam  et  ipsa  tota 
patet,  et  columnar  polity  sunt.  That  is,  he  says  that  the  villa  has 
pleased  him  greatly,  because  the  paved  portico  had  the  high-^st 
beauty,  "  which  now  has  at  length  appeared  to  me,  since  it  lies 
open  as  a  laholc,  and  the  columns  have  been  polished."  Here  the 
use  oi  tota  for  complete  is  evident.  He  is  captivated  by  the  beauty 
of  the  portico,  since  it  has  been  finished,  and  he  views  it  as  a  whole. 

Ramshorn's  Latin  Synonyms,  translated  by  Dr.  Francis  Lieber, 
and  incidentally  referred  to  in  the  Book  Notices  of  the  April  num- 


Il6  A    QUESTION    OF    LATINITV. 

ber  of  the  Review  as  a  high  authority,  defines  totiis  (as  distinguished 
from  omnis,  cunctus  and  universns)  as  complete.  The  rarity  of  the 
meaning  of  complete  for  toius  in  the  lexicons,  arises  from  the  fact 
that  it  was  usually  applied,  as  Doderlein  remarks  in  his  Synonyms 
(Unabridged  Work,  Vol.  iv.  357  ;  of.  also  Manual,  American  Edi- 
tion), to  what  is  originally  a  whole,  but  which  is  liable  to  fall 
into  pieces  by  accident,  whereas  omnis,  iiniversiis  and  cunctus 
denote  original  individualities  which  form  a  whole  by  their  associa- 
tion." It  will  be  noticed  that,  in  this  sense,  tota  could  not  have 
been  used  by  Cicero,  in  the  letter  above  cited,  or  by  Melanchthon, 
in  the  passage  under  consideration,  as  the  Confession  is  not  regarded 
as  an  original  whole,  but  as  having  been  developed  into  a  complete 
form  by  a  process  of  growth,  whose  stages  are  distinctly  marked. 
The  same  remark  applies  also  to  Luther's  use  of  the  same  word, 
concerning  the  Confession,  in  his  letter  of  July  3,  where  there  can 
be  no  doubt  as  to  the  meaning  of  Rclegi  h'ri  tuam  apologiam  dili- 
genter  totam,  as  referring  to  the  complete  Confession. 

But  while  all  objections  to  the  translation  of  ^'-  tota  forma,''''  as  the 
complete  form,  utterly  fail,  we  need  not  insist  on  the  precise  word 
objected  to.  If  we  simply  translate  tota  forma  as  "the  whole 
form,"  or  "all  the  form,"  or  as  Freund  defines /^///j-,  ganz  und gar, 
'oollig,  or  as  Cooper's  Thesaurus,  "every  whit  of,"  the  way  is  en- 
tirely closed  against  any  hypothesis  of  material  changes  or  additions 
after  the  Confession  is  said  to  have  reached  this  stage  of  prepara- 
tion, l^  tota  forma  designate  the  Confession,  as  it  existed  on  May 
nth,  or  even  May  2 2d,  then  all  the  testimony  we  have  from  cotem- 
porary  documents,  as  to  the  changes  made  in  the  interval  before  the 
delivery  must  be  explained  away,  an  alternative  that  is  impossible. 

The  reviewer  explains  the  tota  as  used  to  designate  the  two 
divisions  of  the  Confession,  "  the  doctrinal  articles"  and  the  "con- 
troverted articles,"  and  understands  Missa  est  deinde  et  Luther 0, 
as :  The  two  sections  of  the  Confession  in  their  general  structure 
were  afterwards  sent  to  Luther.  Thus  tota,  "comprising  all  the 
parts,"  '■'ganz  und  gar,'''  "every  whit  of,"  gradually  wanes  under 
the  pen  of  our  critic,  until  it  loses  all  its  force.  The  fact  is  ignored, 
that  what  is  a  part  of  a  part,  must  also  be  a  part  of  the  whole. 
A  hand  cannot  be  strictly  called  tota  manus,  if  the  smallest  joint 
of  the  smallest  finger  be  wanting,  or  the  body  a  totum  corpus,  if  one 
of  the  hands  be  thus  mutilated.     So,  too,  in  Zoology,  a  peculiarity 


A    QUESTION    OF    LATINITY.  I  I  7 

dare  not  be  predicated  of  a  natural  order  as  tota,  if  a  single  known 
species  of  a  single  genus  fail  to  exhibit  it ;  a  slip  of  this  kind  would 
be  published  and  condemned  by  scientists  as  soon  as  detected.  Of 
course,  in  regard  to  the  statement  of  occurrences,  somewhat  more 
latitude  in  the  use  of  terms  is  allowed  than  in  scientific  terminol- 
ogy ;  but  that  tliis  is  much  more  restricted  than  what  the  reviewer 
desires,  is  clear. 

It  is  conceded  that  totiis  is  the  Latin  etjuivalent  for  \,,\(ir,.  As  such 
it  is  frequently  used  in  the  Vulgate.  We  recall  the  fact  that  in  one 
of  the  chief  passages,  upon  which  rests  the  doctrine  of  the  univer- 
sality of  the  atonement,  i  John  ii.  2,  precisely  the  same  mode  of 
explaining  away  the  force  of  the  tottis  has  been  resorted  to  by  the 
advocates  of  a  limited  atonement.  '•  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our 
sins  ;  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world 
TTEiil  b'/oi'  Tov  Kocfiov  pro  totiiis  mi/nJi.''  Not  all  the  world,  they  say, 
but  for  believers  scattered  among  all  nations,  in  all  parts  of  the 
world,  or  for  believer  who  will  be  born  in  all  ages  of  the  world. 
Surely,  with  the  reviewer's  idea  of  tota,  as  applicable  only  to  the 
two  general  divisions  of  the  Confession,  without  necessarily  imply- 
ing any  completeness  within  these  sections,  there  can  be  no  diffi- 
culty in  accepting  the  to/his  mtindi  as  indicating  simply  the  two 
great  sections  of  humanity,  Jews  and  Gentiles,  with  respect  to 
those  within  them  who  will  be  saved.  The  reviewer,  it  is  likely, 
repudiates  such  an  evasive  meaning  of  the  h^.un,  totus,  in  the  passage 
cited;  but  to  be  consistent  he  must  do  the  same  also  here. 

So,  too,  reference  might  be  made  to  the  same  force  of  totiis  in 
our  Saviour's  summary  of  the  law  :  "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
God — [v  ()'7ii  71]  HnpiVid.  etc.;  (X  ioto  cordc  ti/o,  ct  in  tota  anima  tiia,  ,t 
in  tota  mint,-  tita'"  (Matth.  xxii.  37);  by  which  there  is  demanded 
such  complete,  full,  entire,  thorough  obedience,  that  "  whosoever 
shall  keep  the  whole  law,"  not  simply  the  main  principles  of  the 
two  tables,  but  the  totam  legem — hhw  -wvbnw,  "and  yet  offend  in 
one  point,  he  is  guilty  of  all"  (James  ii.  10).  The  importance  of 
the  Vulgate  in  investigating  the  meaning  of  words  employed  by  the 
Reformers  and  early  theologians  of  our  Church  must  not  be  ignored. 

We  have  not  overlooked  some  passages  in  which  totus-  is  used  in  a 
looser  sense,  such  as  Matth.  iv.  23  :  "  Jesus  went  about  all  Galilee  " 
(totam  Ga/i/aani),  which  does  not  indeed  mean  that  he  traversed 
every  atom,  or  square  inch,  or  foot,  or  mile  of  its  territory,  but  only 


I  I  8  A    QUESTION    OF   LATINITY. 

SO  much  that  no  important  place  was  omitted.  The  apphcation  of 
tota,  even  in  this  sense,  would  be  fatal  to  the  reviewer's  theory,  as 
the  aim  of  his  argument  is  to  show  that  although  the  tota  forma, 
the  whole  form,  had  been  sent  to  Luther,  yet  there  were  imjx^rtant 
portions  of  the  Confession  withheld  until  after  the  delivery. 

It  has  already  been  intimated  that,  had  the  reviewer  felt  so  dis- 
posed, he  might  have  assailed  the  forma  with  perhaps  a  better  show 
of  success  than  the  fota.  It  is  used  for  "contour,  figure,  shape, 
pattern,  frame-work,"  "  delineatio  fittiiri  adificii,'"  "  disposifio  par- 
fium  exterior,''  and  thus  might  perhaps  be  applied  to  the  outline  of 
a  document,  and,  from  this,  the  inference  might  be  drawn  that  only 
a  scheme  of  the  whole  had  been  sent  to  Luther.  But  the  fact  that 
the  Confession  had  passed  beyond  this  stage  before  Melanchthon 
began  his  work  upon  it,  and  especially  that  after  the  elaboration  of 
what  was  transmitted  to  Luther  on  May  iith,  the  term  outline 
could  no  longer  be  applied  to  forma  in  this  connection,  prevented 
the  reviewer  from  building  his  argument  upon  this  basis.  If  these 
considerations  were  still  insufificient  to  show  that  forma  could  not 
be  thus  used,  the  third  pxiragraph  after  the  statement  under  discus- 
sion, already  quoted,  is  decisive.  "Since  I  know  how  great  is  the 
difficulty  of  this  subject,  I  have  always  wished  that  godly  and 
learned  men  should  assemble,  and  the  subjects,  concerning  the 
entire  doctrine,  being  calmly  deliberated  upon,  that  they  should  hand 
down  to  posterity  the  same  sentences  2>x\^  forms  of  speaking."  So, 
too,  Luther,  in  the  Preface  to  the  Small  Catechism  :  Ut  perpetno 
eadem  utantiir  forma ;  and  in  the  following  sentence  :  Una  atque 
eadem  forma  saepiia  proposita  ac  repetifa.  "  That  they  perpetually 
use  the  same  form."  "One  and  the  same  form  being  very  fre- 
quently presented  and  repeated;"  which  means,  as  the  context 
shows,  a  set  form  of  words,  the  very  same  words,  "  ///  ne  una  qi/idem 
syllaba  immiitettir. ' ' 

The  definition  formulary,  for  which  the  diminutive  formula  is 
more  frecjuently  used,  as  in  Formula  Cone  or  dice,  is  that  which 
clearly  belongs  to  forma  as  here  found. 

This  is  clearly  shown  by  the  following  memoranda,  made  by  Dr. 
Krauth  : 

MEMORANDA    ON    FORMA. 

1530,  May  II.  Elector's  letter  to  Luther:  "Melanchthon  in 
eine    Form    gezogen   hat."      Forni   contrasted  with  Verzeichniss, 


I 


A    QUESTION    OF    LATINITY.  II9 

sketch,  three  lines  above.  Corp.  Ref.,  687.  Chytraeus  :  Lai: 
in  formam  redigisse  (translates  Verzeichniss  by  '-scripto  brevi"). 
French  :   en  bonne  forme. 

1540.  Melanchthon's  Formula  Tcstamenti.^  Constat  Augustin- 
ianam  formam  satis  explicitam  non  esse."     Forma-Confessio. 

1569,  March  25.  The  Electoral  Theologians  translate  Melanch- 
thon's words  "  tota  forma  Confessionis"  :  "So  hat  man  die  ganze 
'Confession,  wie  sie  gestalt  worden,  Luthero  uberschickt.'"' 

15 71.  The  theologians  of  Leijjzig  and  Wittenberg,  give  as  eijuiv- 
alent  to  "  tota  forma  Confessionis,"  "dieselbe  Schrifft  der  Confes- 
sion."" 

1584.  In  the  official  defence  of  the  Formula  Concordije,  by 
Kirchner,  Selneccer  and  Chemnitz,  "  tota  forma  Confessionis"  is 
translated,  "die  gantze  Confession/"^ 

1646.  Calovius  distinguishes  between  matter  and  form  in  the 
Confession — the  matter  of  which  it  is  made,  the  matter  about  which 
it  treats.  The  form  is  either  internal,  the  general  sense  and  mean- 
ing, or  external,  "  quam  vocamus  dispositionem  totius  Confessionis 
et  tractandi  modum."" 

1703.  Piping  says  the  Elector  gave  Luther's  XVII  Articles  to 
Melanchthon,  "das  er  sie  iibersehen  und  in  eine  bequeme  form 
bringen  solte."" 

1730.  Pfaff.  "The  Elector  enjoined  on  Melanchthon  that  he 
should  revise  the  XVII  Articles,  et  ampliorem  in  formam  redigat."" 


"  I  understand  the  meaning  to  be  this  :  The  matter  in  its  elabor- 
ated shape,  the  formulated  expression  :  tota  forma  Confessionis,  is 
e(juivalent  to  the  Confession  in  its  finished  shape — the  forma  as 
over  against  unelaborated  material — the  tota  as  against  incomplete- 
ness of  shape,  either  for  defect  of  parts,  or  of  finish  in  the  parts." 

See  Index  to  Miiller's  Ed.  of  Symb.  Books,  under  Form. 

It  would  be  just  as  difficult  to  find  a  vulnerable  point  in  the  trans- 
lation of  dcindc  by  "subsequently,"  or  o{  postca  by  "after  this," 
as  in  that  of  '' tota  foima''  by  ''the  complete  form y  This, 
although  important  to  his  purpose,  the  reviewer  has  wisely  not  at- 
tempted. 

»  Seckendorf,  H.  L.,  1540,  270.  *Acta  und  Handlung,  1570,  339b. 

'  Bericht,  1571,  12b.  **  GriiiKlliche  Historia,  no. 

^Crt.  Sacra.,  42.     Excgema  Aug.  Conf.,  111.,  ^7,  8. 
'"  Eiilciuiii^,',  59,  XII.  "Imnxl.  Histor.  III.  \2. 


1  20  A    QUESTION    OF    LATINITV. 

We  are  forced,  therefore,  to  the  conchision  that  the  entire  effort 
has  failed  to  demonstrate  a  single  error  in  the  points  of  Latinity 
involved  in  the  discussion. 

We  are  also  persuaded  that,  with  this  clear  record  of  Melanchthon 
before  us  and  the  translation  and  interpretation  proposed  in  the 
Conservative  Reformation,  prevailing  over  all  objections,  as  it  must 
to  all  who  have  sufficient  resources  for  testing  the  points  involved, 
and  are  willing  to  give  it  earnest  and  imprejudiced  attention, 
but  one  result  can  be  reached  as  to  the  relation  of  Luther  to 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  during  the  period  succeeding  May  ii. 
It  is  useless  for  us  to  add  anything  on  this  subject  to  the 
complete  vindication  of  his  position  which  Dr.  Krauth  has  given  in 
this  volume.  The  direct  statement  in  Melanchthon 's  letter  of 
May  2 2d.  as  to  the  incompleteness  as  yet  of  the  Confession,  the 
declaration  of  the  Corpus  Doctrime,  above  examined,  as  to  the 
fact  that  Luther  had  seen  and  approved  the  tota  forma  before  its 
delivery,  combined  with  the  extensive  and  decisive  reports  of  the 
Niirnburg  ambassadors  as  to  the  transactions  in  the  interim,  are 
matters  that  cannot  be  explained  away,  and  that  lead  inevitably  to 
the  conviction  that  all  that  has  been  claimed  in  this  connection,  in 
the  Conservative  Reformation,  and  re-affirmed  by  its  author  in  the 
Proceedings  of  the  Diet,  is  a  correct  representation  of  historical 
facts.  In  this  conviction  we  have  been  confirmed  by  the  re-exam- 
ination of  the  documents,  which  the  article  in  the  Review  has  com- 
pelled us  to  make. 


■» 

Date  Due 

ftin.1 

1 

mks^mn^ 

9 

HV£ii-^- 

.  .11    "*' 

^^rfflf^^ 

^ 

v?-«.«,^ 

\ 

MA?  ^^5  f 

J       "" 

f 

'  i  f 

*S,^ 

> 

"^y 

/ 

^»*« 

sram,"^^"^"'"" 

f) 

PRINTED 

IN  U.  S.  A. 

ri'm  Vr?!  n ''?"°"'"  ^fminary-SpMr  Library 


1    1012  01144  8729 


